First Principle or Self-existent Vnmade thing That according to this Notion of the word God there can be no such thing as an Atheist no man beâ—ng able to perswade himself that all things sprung from Nothing 6. In order to the more punctual Declaration of the Divine Idea the Opinion of those taken notice of who suppose Two Self-existent Vnmade Principles God and Matter and so God not to be the Sole but only the Chief Principle 7. That these are but Imperfect and Mistaken Theists Their Idea of God declared with its Defectivenâ—ss A Latitude in Theism None to be condemned for Absolute Atheists but â—uch as deny an Eternal Vnmade Mind ruling over the matter 8. The most Compendious Idea of God An Absolutely Perfect Being â—hat this includes not only Conscious Intellectuality and Necessary Existence but also Omni-causality Omnipotence and Infinite Power and therâ—fore God the sole Principle of all and Cause of Matter The true Notion of Infinite Power Pagans acknowledged the Divine Omnipotence And that the Atheists supposed Infinite Power to be included in the Idea of God proved from Lucretius 9. That absolute Perfection implies something more than Power and Knowledge A Vaticination in mens minds of a Higher Good than either That God is Better than Knowledge according to Aristotle and that there is Morality in the Nature of God wherein his chief Happiness consisâ—eth This borrowed from Plato who makes the Highest Perfection and Supreme Deity to be Goodness it self above Knowledge and Intellect God and the Supreme Good according to the Scripture Love God no soft or fond Love but an Impartial Law and the Measure of all things That the Atheists supposed Goodness also to be included in the Idea of God The Idea of God more Explicate and Vnfolded A Being absolutely Perfect Infinitely Good Wise and Powerful Necessarily Existent and not only the Framer of the World but also the Cause of all things 10. That this Idea of God Essentially includes Unity or Onelyness in it since there can be but One Supreme One Cause of all things One Omnipotent and One Infinitely Perfect This Vnity or Onelyness of the Deity supposed also by Epicurus and Lucretius who professedly denyed a God according to this Idea 11. The Grand Prejudice against the Naturality of this Idea of God as it Essentially includes Vnity and Solitariety from the Polytheism of all Nations formerly besides the Jewes and of all the wisest men and Philosophers from whence it is inferred that this Idea of God is but Artificial and owes its Original to Laws and Institution An Enquiry to be made concerning the true sence of the Pagan Polytheism That the Objectors take it for granted that the Pagan Polytheists universally asserted Many Self-existent Intellectual Beings and Independent Deities as so many Partial Causes of the World 12. First the Irrationality of this Opinion and its manifest Repugnancy to the Phaenomena which render it less probable to have been the Belief of all the Pagan Polytheists 13. Secondly That no such thing at all appears as that ever any Intelligent Pagans asserted a Multitude of Eternal Vnmade Independent Deities The Hesiodian Gods The Valentinian Aeons The nearest Approach made thereunto by the Manichean Good and Evil Gods This Doctrine not generally asserted by the Greek Philosophers as Plutarch affirmeth Questioned whether the Persian Evil Daemon or Arimanius were a Self-existent Principle Essentially Evil. Aristotle's Confutation and Explosion of Many Principles or Independent Deities Faustus the Manichean his Conceit that the Jews and Christians Paganized in the Opinion of Monarchy with St. Austin's Judgment concerning the Pagans thereupon 14. Concluded that the Pagan Polytheism must be understood according to another Equivocation in the word Gods as used for Created Intellectual Beings superiour to Men that ought to be Religiously Worshipped That the Pagans held both Many Gods and One God as Onatus the Pythagorean declares himself in different Sences Many Inferiour Deities Suberdinate to One Supreme 15. Further Evidence of this that the Intelligent Pagan Polytheists held only a Plurality of Inferiour Deities Subordinate to one Supreme First because after the Emersion of Christianity and its contest with Paganism when occasion was offered not only no Pagan asserted a Multiplicity of Independent Deities but also all Vniversally disclaim'd it and professed to acknowledge One Supreme God 16. That this was no Refinement or Interpolation of Paganism as might possibly be suspected but that the Doctrine of the most Ancient Pagan Theologers and greatest Promoters of Polytheism was agreeable hereunto which will be proved not from suspected Writings as of Trismegist and the Sibyls but such as are Indubitate First That Zoroaster the chief Promoter of Polytheism in the Eastern Parts acknowledged one Supreme Deity the Maker of the World proved from Eubulus in Porphyry besides his own words cited by Eusebius 17. That Orpheus commonly called by the Greeks The Theologer and the Father of the Grecanick Polytheism clearly asserted one Supreme Deity proved by his own words out of Pagan Records 18. That the Aegyptians themselves the most Polytheistical of all Nations had an acknowledgement amongst them of one Supreme Deity 19. That the Poets who were the greatest Depravers of the Pagan Theology and by their Fables of the Gods made it look more Aristocratically did themselves notwithstanding acknowledge a Monarchy one Prince and Father of Gods That famous Passage of Sophocles not to be suspected though not found in any of these Tragedies now extant 20. That all the Pagan Philosophers who were Theists universally asserted a Mundane Monarchy Pythagoras as much a Polytheist as any and yet his First Principle of Things as well as Numbers a Monad or Unity Anaxagoras his One Mind ordering all things for Good Xenophanes his One and All and his One God the Greatest among the Gods 21. Parmenides his Supreme God One Immoveable Empedocles his both Many Gods Junior to Friendship and Contention and his One God called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Senior to them Zeno Eleates his Demonstration of One God in Aristotle 22. Philolaus his Prince and Governour of all God always One Euclides Megarensis his God called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One the Very Good Timaeus Locrus his Mind and Good above the Soul of the World Antisthenes his One Natural God Onatus his Corypheus 23. Generally believed and true that Socrates acknowledged One Supreme God but that he disclaimed all the Inferiour Gods of the Pagans a Vulgar Error Plato also a Polytheist and that Passage which some lay so great stress upon That he was serious when he began his Epistles with God but when with Gods jocular Spurious and Counterfeit and yet he was notwithstanding an undoubted Monotheist also in another sence an Asserter of One God over all of a Maker of the World of a First God of a Greatest of the Gods The First Hypostasis of the Platonick Trinity properly the King of all things for whose sake are all things Tâ—e Father of the Cause and
Polytheists and Theogonists also and asserting besides the One Supreme Vnmade Deity other Inferiour Mundane Gods Generated together with the World the Chief whereof were the Animated Stars they must needs according to the Tenor of that Tradition suppose them as to their Corporeal Parts at least to have been Juniors to Night and Chaos and the Off-spring of them because they were all made out of an Antecedent Dark Chaos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Mus Araneus being blind is said to have been deified by the Egyptians because they thought that Darkness was older than Light And the Case was the same concerning their Demons likewise they being conceived to have their Corporeal Vehicula also for which Cause as Porphyrius from Numenius writeth the ancient Egyptians pictured them in Ships or Boats floating upon the Water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Egyptians therefore represented all their Demons as not standing upon firm Land but in Ships upon the Water But as for the Incorporeal Part or Souls of those Inferiour Gods though these Divine Theogonists could not derive their Original from Chaos or Matter but rather from that other Principle called Love as being Divinely Created and so having God for their Father yet might they notwithstanding in another sence phancy Night to have been their Mother too inasmuch as they were all made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from an antecedent Non-existence or Nothing brought forth into Being For which Cause there seems to have been in Orpheus a Dialogue betwixt the Maker of the World and Night For that this ancient Cabala which derived the Cosmogonia from Chaos and Love was at first Religious and not Atheistical and Love understood in it not to be the Off-spring of Chaos may be concluded from hence because this Love as well as Chaos was of a Mosaical Extraction also and plainly derived from that Spirit of God which is said in the Scripture To have moved upon the waters that is upon the Chaos whether by this Spirit be to be meant God Himself as acting immediatly upon the Matter or some other Active Principle derived from God and not from Matter as a Mundane Soul or Plastick Nature From whence also it came that as Porphyrius testifieth the ancient Pagans thought the Water to be Divinely inspired 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They thought that Souls attended upon the Water or resorted thereunto as being Divinely Inspired as Numenius writeth adding the Prophet also therefore to have said That the Spirit of God moved upon the Water And that this Cabala was thus understood by some of the ancient Pagan Cosmogonists themselves appears plainly not only from Simmias Rhodius and Parmenides but also from these following Verses of Orpheus or whoever was the Writer of those Argonauticks undoubtedly ancient where Chaos and Love are thus brought in together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this Sence We will first sing a pleasant and delightful Song concerning the ancient Chaos how Heaven Earth and Seas were framed out of it as also concerning that Much-wise and Sagacious Love The Oldest of all and Self-perfect which actively produced all these things separating one thing from another Where this Love is not only called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Much-counsel or Sagaciousness which implies it to have been a Substantial and Intellectual Thing but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Oldest of all and therefore Senior to Chaos as likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-perfect or Self-originated From whence it is manifest that according to the Orphick Tradition this Love which the Cosmogonia was derived from was no other than the Eternal Vnmade Deity or an Active Principle depending on it which produced this whole Orderly World and all the Generated Gods in it as to their Material part out of Chaos and Night Accordingly as Aristotle determines in his Metaphysicks not only in the place before-cited but also afterward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Others besides the Material Cause of the World assign an Efficient or Cause of Motion namely whosoever make either Mind and Intellect or Love a Principle Wherefore we conclude that that other Atheistick Cabala or Aristophanick Tradition before-mentioned which accordingly as Aristotle also elsewhere declareth concerning it did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Generate all things whatsoever even the Gods themselves universally out of Night and Chaos making Love it self likewise to have been produced from an Egg of the Night I say that this was nothing else but a mere Depravation of the ancient Mosaick Cabala as also an Absolutely Impossible Hypothesis it deriving all things whatsoever in the Universe besides the Bare Substance of Sensless Matter in another Sence then that before-mentioned out of Non-entity or Nothing as shall be also farther manifested afterwards We have now represented the Sence and generally received Doctrine of the ancient Pagan Theologers that there was indeed a Multiplicity of Gods but yet so that One of them only was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ingenerate or Vnmade by whom all the other Gods together with the World were Made so as to have had a Novity of Being or a Temporary Beginning of their Existence Plato and the Pythagoreans here only differing from the rest in this that though they acknowledged the World and all the Mundane Gods to have been Generated together in Time yet they supposed certain other Intelligible and Supramundane Gods also which however produced from one Original Deity were nevertheless Eternal or without Beginning But now we must acknowledge that there were amongst the Pagan Theists some of a different perswasion from the rest who therefore did did not admit of any Theogonia in the sence before declared that is any Temporary Generation of Gods because they acknowledged no Cosmogonia no Temporary Production of the World but concluded it to have been from Eternity That Aristotle was one of these is sufficiently known whose Inferior Gods therefore the Sun Moon and Stars must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ingenerate in this sence so as to have had no Temporary Production because the Whole World to him was such And if that Philosopher be to be believed himself was the very First at least of all the Greeks who asserted this Ingenerateness or Eternity of the World he affirming that all before him did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Generate or Make the World that is attribute a Temporary Production to it and consequently to all those Gods also which were a Part thereof Notwithstanding which the Writer de Placitis Philosophorum and Stobaeus impute this Dogma of the Worlds Eternity to certain others of the Greek Philosophers before Aristotle besides Ocellus Lucanus who is also acknowledged by Philo to have been an assertor thereof And indeed Epicharmus though a Theist seems plainly to have been of this Perswasion that the World was Vnmade
Independent upon the Deity since according to the best and most ancient Writers his Dyad was no Primary but a Secondary Thing only and derived from his Monad the sole Original of all things Thus Diogenes Laertius tells us that Alexander who wrote the Successions of Philosophers affirmed he had found in the Pythagorick Commentaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That a Monade was the Principle of all things but that from this Monade was derived infinite Duality as Matter for the Monade to work upon as the Active Cause With which agreeth Hermias affirming this to be one of the greatest of all the Pythagorick Mysteries that a Monade was the sole Principle of all things Accordingly whereunto Clomens Alexandrinus cites this Passage out of Thearidas an ancient Pythagorean in his Book concerning Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The true Principle of all things was only One for this was in the beginning One and Alone Which words also seem to imply the World to have had a Novity of Existence or beginning of Duration And indeed however Ocellus Lucanus write yet that Pythagoras himself did not hold the Eternity of the World may be concluded from what Porphyrius records of him where he gives an Account of that his superstitious abstinence from Beans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That at the beginning things being confounded and mingled together the Generation and Secretion of them afterwards proceeded by degrees Animals and Plants appearing at which time also from the same putrified Matter sprung up both Men and Beans Pythagoras is generally reported to have held a Trinity of Divine Hypostases and therefore when St. Cyril affirmeth Pythagoras to have called God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Animation of the whole Heavens and the Motion of all things adding that God was not as some supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Fabrick of the World but whole in the whole this seems properly to be understood of that Third Divine Hypostasis of the Pythagorick Trinity namely the Eternal Psyche Again when God is called in Plutarch according to Pythagoras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind it self this seems to be meant properly of his Second Hypostasis the Supreme Deity according to him being something above Mind or Intellect In like manner when in Cicero Pythagoras his Opinion concerning the Deity is thus represented Deum esse animum per naturam rerum omnium intentum commeantem ex quo Animi nostri carperentur That God was a Mind passing through the whole Nature of things from whom our Souls were as it were decerped or cut out And again Ex universa mente Divina delibatos esse animos nostros this in all probability was to be understood also either of the Third or Second Divine Hypostasis and not of the First which was properly called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Vnity and Monade and also as Plutarch tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Goodness it self Aristotle plainly affirmeth that some of the ancient Theologers amongst the Pagans made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Love to be the First Principle of all things that is the Supreme Deity and we have already shewed that Orpheus was one oft hese For when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Delightful Love and that which is not blind but full of Wisdom and Counsel is made by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-perfect and the Oldest of all Things it is plain that he supposed it to be nothing less than the Supreme Deity Wherefore since Pythagoras is generally affirmed to have followed the Orphick Principles we may from hence presume that he did it in this also Though it be very true that Plato who called the Supreme Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as Pythagoras did dissent from the Orphick Theology in this and would not acknowledge Love for a name of the Supreme Deity as when in his Symposion in the person of Agatho he speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though I should readily grant to Phaedrus many other things yet I cannot consent to him in this that Love was Older than Saturn and Japet but on the contrary I do affirm him to be the Youngest of the Gods as he is always youthful They who made Love Older than Saturn as well as Japhet supposed it to be the Supreme Deity wherefore Plato here on the contrary affirms Love not to be the Supreme Deity or Creator of all but a Creature a Certain Junior God or indeed as he afterwards adds not so much a God as a Daemon it being a thing which plainly implies Imperfection in it Love saith he is a Philosopher whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no God philosophizeth nor dâ—sires to be made wise because he is so already Agreably with which Doctrine of his Plotinus determines that Love is peculiar to that middle rank of Beings called Souls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Every Soul is a Venus which is also intimated by Venus her Nativity and Loves being begotten with her wherefore the Soul being in its right natural state Loves God desiring to be united with him which is a pure heavenly and virgin Love but when it descends to Generation being courted with these Amorous allurements here below and deceived by them it changeth that its Divine and Heavenly Love for another Mortal one but if it again shake off these lascivious and wanton Loves and keep it self chast from them returning back to its own Father and Original it will be rightly affected as it ought But the reason of this difference betwixt the Orpheists and Plato that the former made Love to be the Oldest of all the Gods but the latter to be a Junior God or Daemon proceeded only from an Equivocation in the word Love For Plato's Love was the Daughter of Penia that is Poverty and Indigency together with a mixture of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Riches and being so as it were compounded of Plenty and Poverty was in plain language no other than the Love of Desire which as Aristotle affirmeth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accompanied with Grief and Pain But that Orphick and Pythagorick Love was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infinite Riches and Plenty a Love of Redundancy and Overflowing Fulness delighting to communicate it self which was therefore said to be the Oldest of all things and most Perfect that is the Supreme Deity according to which notion also in the Scripture it self God seems to be called Love though the word be not there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But to say the Truth Parmenides his Love however made a Principle somewhere by Aristotle seems to be neither exactly the same with the Orphick nor yet with the Platonick Love it being not the Supreme Deity and yet the First of the Created Gods which appears from Simplicius his connecting these Two
Substance and fondly dreaming that the Vulgar Notion of a God is Nothing but such an Inadequate Conception of the Matter of the whole Vniverse Mistaken for an Entire Substance by it self the Cause of all things And thus far the Digression Page 172 XXXVIII That though the Confutation of the Atheistick Grounds according to the Laws of Method ought to have been reserved for the last part of this Discourse yet we having reason to violate those Laws crave the Reader 's Pardon for this Preposterousness A considerable Observation of Plato's That it is not onely Gross Sensuality which inclines men to Atheize but also an Affectation of seeming Wiser than the Generality of mankind As likewise that the Atheists making such Pretence to Wit it is a seasonable and proper Vndertaking to Evince that they Fumble in all their Ratiocinations And we hope to make it appear that the Atheists are no Conjurers and that all Forms of Atheism are Nonsense and Impossibility Page 174 CHAP. IV. The Idea of God declared in way of Answer to the First Atheistick Argument and the Grand Objection against the Naturality of this Idea as Essentially including Vnity or Oneliness in it from the Pagan Polytheism removed Proved That the Intelligent Pagans Generally acknowledged One Supreme Deity A fuller Explication of whose Polytheism and Idolatry intended in order to the better giving an Accompt of Christianity I. THE either Stupid Insensibility or Gross Impudence of Atheists in denying the Word God to have any Signification or that there is any other Idea answering to it besides the meer Phantasm of the Sound The Disease called by the Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Petrification or Dead Insensibility of the Mind Page 192 II. That the Atheists themselves must needs have an Idea of God in their Minds or otherwise when they deny his Existence they should deny the Existence of Nothing That they have also the same Idea of him in Generall with the Theists the One Denying the very same thing which the Others Affirm Page 194 III. A Lemma or Preparatory Proposition to the Idea of God That though some things be Made or Generated yet it is not possible that all things should be Made but something must of necessity Exist of it Self from Eternity Unmade and be the Cause of those other things that are Made ibid. IV. The Two most Opposite Opinions concerning what was Self-Existent from Eternity or Unmade and the Cause of all other things Made One That it was Nothing but Sensless Matter the Most Imperfect of all things The Other That it was Something Most Perfect and therefore Consciously Intellectual The Asserters of this Latter opinion Theists in a Strict and Proper Sense of the Former Atheists So that the Idea of God in Generall is A Perfect Consciously Understanding Being or Mind Self-Existent from Eternity and the Cause of all other things Page 194 195. V. Observable That the Atheists who deny a God according to the True Idea of him do Notwithstanding often Abuse the Word calling Sensless Matter by that name they meaning Nothing else thereby but onely a First Principle or Self-Existent Unmade thing according to which Notion of the word God there can be no such thing at all as an Atheist no man being able to persuade himself That all things sprung from Nothing Page 195 VI. In order to a more Punctual Declaration of this Divine Idea the Opinion of those taken notice of who suppose Two Self-Existent Unmade Principles God and Matter according to which God not the Principle of all things nor the Sole Principle but onely the Chief Page 196 197. VII These Materiarians Imperfect and Mistaken Theists Not Atheists because they suppose the World Made and Governed by an Animalish Sentient and Understanding Nature whereas no Atheists acknowledge Conscious Animality to be a First Principle but conclude it to be all Generable and Corruptible Nor yet Genuine Theists because they acknowledge not Omnipotence in the full Extent thereof A Latitude therefore in Theism and none to be condemned for Absolute Atheists but such as deny an Eternal Unmade Mind the Framer and Governour of the whole World Page 198 199. VIII An Absolutely Perfect Being the most Compendious Idea of God Which Includeth in it not onely Necessary Existence and Conscious Intellectuality but also Omni-Causality Omnipotence or Infinite Power Wherefore God the Sole Principle of all things and Cause of Matter The True Notion of Infinite Power And that Pagans commonly acknowledged Omnipotence or Infinite Power to be included in the Idea of God Page 200 201. IX That Absolute Perfection implies yet something more than Knowledge and Power A Vaticination in mens Minds of a Higher Good than either That according to Aristotle God is better than Knowledge and hath Morality in his Nature wherein also his Chief Happiness consisteth This borrowed from Plato to whom the Highest Perfection and Supreme Deity is Goodness it self Substantiall above Knowledge and Intellect Agreeably with which the Scripture makes God and the Supreme Good Love This not to be understood of a Soft Fond and Partiall Love God being rightly called also an Impartial Law and the Measure of all things Atheists also suppose Goodness to be included in the Idea of that God whose Existence they deny This Idea here more largely declared Page 202 203 c. X. That this forementioned Idea of God Essentially Includeth Unity Oneliness or Solitariety in it since there cannot possibly be more than One Absolutely Supreme One Cause of All things One Omnipotent and One Infinitely Perfect Epicurus and his Followers professedly denyed a God according to this Notion of him Page 207 XI The Grand Objection against the Idea of God as thus Essentially Including Oneliness and Singularity in it from the Polytheism of all Nations formerly the Jews excepted and of all the Wisest men and Philosophers From whence it is Inferred that this Idea of God is not Natural but Artificial and owes its Original to Laws and Arbitrary Institutions onely An Enquiry therefore here to be made concerning the True Sense of the Pagan Polytheism the Objectors securely taking it for granted that the Pagan Polytheists universally asserted Many Unmade Self-Existent Intellectual Beings and Independent Deities as so many Partial Causes of the World Page 208 209. XII The Irrationality of which Opinion and its manifest Repugnancy to the Phaenomena render it less probable to have been the Belief of all the Pagan Polytheists Page 210 XIII That the Pagan Deities were not all of them Vniversally look'd upon as so many Unmade Self-Existent Beings Vnquestionably Evident from hence Because they Generally held a Theogonia or Generation of Gods This Point of the Pagan Theology insisted upon by Herodotus the most ancient Prosaïck Greek Writer In whom the meaning of that Question Whether the Gods were Generated or Existed all from Eternity seems to have been the same with this of Plato's Whether the World were Made or Unmade Page 211 Certain also that amongst
Plutarch in Herodotus as spoken Universally Plutarch himself restraining the Sense thereof to his Evill Principle Plato's ascribing the World to the Divine Goodness who therefore made all things most like Himself The true meaning of this Proverb That the Deity affecteth to Humble and Abase the Pride of men Lucretius his Hidden Force that hath as it were a Spite to all Overswelling Greatnesses could be no other then the Deity Those amongst Christians who make the worst Representation of God yet Phansy him Kind and Gracious to Themselves Page 659 660 True that Religion often expressed by the Fear of God Fear Prima Mensura Deitatis the First Impression that Religion makes upon men in this Lapsed State But this not a Fear of God as Mischievous and Hurtfull nor yet as a meer Arbitrary Being but as Just and an Impartiall Punisher of Wickedness Lucretius his acknowledging mens Fear of God to be conjoyned with a Conscience of Duty A Naturall Discrimination of Good and Evill with a Sense of an Impartiall Justice presiding over the World and both Rewarding and Punishing The Fear of God as either a Hurtfull or Arbitrary and Tyrannicall Being which must needs be joyned with something of Hatred not Religion but Superstition Fear Faith and Love Three Steps and Degrees of Religion to the Son of Sirach Faith better Defined in Scripture then by any Scholasticks God such a Being as if he were not Nothing more to be Wished for Page 660 661 The Reason why Atheists thus mistake the Notion of God as a Thing onely to be Feared and consequently Hated from their own Ill Nature and Vice The latter disposing them so much to think that there is no Difference of Good and Evill by Nature but onely by Law which Law Contrary to Nature as Restraint to Liberty Hence their denying all Naturall Charity and Acknowledging no Benevolence or Good Will but what arises from Imbecillity Indigency and Fear Their Friendship at best no other then Mercatura Utilitatum Wherefore if there were an Omnipotent Deity this according to the Atheistick Hypothesis could not have so much as that Spurious Love or Benevolence to any thing because standing in Need of Nothing and Devoid of Fear Thus Cotta in Cicero All this asserted also by a late Pretender to Politicks He adding thereunto that God hath no other Right of Commanding then his Irresistible Power nor men any Obligation to obey him but onely from their Imbecillity and Fear or because they cannot Resist him Thus do Atheists Transform the Deity into a Monstrous Shape an Omnipotent Being that hath neither Benevolence nor Justice in him This indeed a Mormo or Bugbear Page 661 662 But as this a false Representation of Theism so the Atheistick Scene of things most Uncomfortable Hopeless and Dismall upon severall Accounts True that no Spightfull Designs in Sensless Atoms in which Regard Plutarch Preferred even this Atheistick Hypothesis before that of an Omnipotent Mischievous Being However no Faith nor Hope neither in Sensless Atoms Epicurus his Confession that it was better to believe the Fable of the Gods then that Materiall Necessity of all things asserted by the other Atheistick Physiologers before himself But he not at all mending the Matter by his supposed Free Will The Panick Fear of the Epicureans of the Frame of Heaven's Cracking and this Compilement of Atoms being dissolved into a Chaos Atheists running from Fear plunge themselves into Fear Atheism rather then Theism from the Imposture of Fear Distrust and Disbelief of Good But Vice afterwards prevailing in them makes them Desire there should be No God Page 663 664 Thus the Atheists who derive the Origin of Religion from Fear First put an Affrightfull Vizard upon the Deity and then conclude it to be but a Mormo or Bugbear the Creature of Fear and Phancy More likely of the Two that the Opinion of a God sprung from Hope of Good then Fear of Evill but neither of these True it owing its Being to the Imposture of no Passion but supported by the Strongest and clearest Reason Nevertheless a Naturall Prolepsis or Anticipation of a God also in mens Minds Preventing Reason This called by Plato and Aristotle a Vaticination Page 664 665 The Second Atheistick Pretence to salve the Phaenomenon of Religion from the Ignorance of Causes and mens innate â—uriosity Vpon which Account the Deity said by them to be nothing but an Asylum of Ignorance or the Sanctuary of Fools next to be Confuted Page 665 That the Atheists both Modern and Ancient here commonly Complicate these Two together Fear and Ignorance of Causes making Theism the Spawn of both as the Fear of Children in the Dark raises Bugbears and Spectres Epicurus his Reason why he took such great pains in the Study of Physiology that by finding out the Naturall Causes of things he might free men from the Terrour of a God that would otherwise Assault their Minds ibid. The Atheists thus Dabbling in Physiology and finding out Materiall Causes for some of those Phaenomena which the unskilfull Vulgar salve onely from a Deity therefore Confident that Religion had no other Originall then this Ignorance of Causes as also that Nature or Matter does all things alone without a God But we shall make it manifest That Philosophy and the True Knowledge of Causes Lead to a Deity and that Atheism from Ignorance of Causes and want of Philosophy Page 665 666 For First No Atheist who derives all from Senslesse Matter can possibly assign any Cause of Himself his own Soul or Mind it being Impossible that Life and Sense should be Naturally produced from what Dead and Sensless or from Magnitudes Figures Sites and Motions An Atheistick Objection nothing to the purpose That Laughing and Crying things are made out of Not-Laughing and Crying Principles because these result from the Mechanism of the Body The Hylozoists never able neither to produce Animal Sense and Consciousness out of what Sensless and Inconscious The Atheists supposing their own Life and Understanding and all the Wisedom that is in the World to have sprung meerly from Sensless Matter and Fortuitous Motion Grossely Ignorant of Causes The Philosophy of Our Selves and True Knowledge of the Cause of our own Soul and Mind brings to God Page 666 667 Again Atheists Ignorant of the Cause of Motion by which they suppose all things done this Phaenomenon being no way Salvable according to their Principles First undeniably certain That Motion not Essential to all Body or Matter as such because then there could have been no Mundane System no Sun Moon Earth c. All things being continually Torn in Pieces and Nothing Cohering Certain also That Dead and Sensless Matter such as that of Anaximander Democâ—itus and Epicurus cannot Move it self Spontaneously by Will or Appetite The Hylozoists further considered elsewhere Democritus could assign no other Cause of Motion then this That one Body moved another from Eternity Infinitely without any First Cause or Mover Thus also a Modern Writer To
not be the First Principle of all things Wherefore we see no very great reason but that in a Rectified and Qualified sence this may pass for true Theology That Love is the Supreme Deity and Original of all things namely if by it be meant Eternal Self-originated Intellectual Love or Essential and Substantial Goodness that having an Infinite overflowing Fulness and Fecundity dispenses it self Uninvidiously according to the best Wisdom Sweetly Governs all without any Force or Violence all things being Naturally subject to its Autority and readily obeying its Laws and reconciles the whole World into Harmony For the Scripture telling us that God is Love seems to warrant thus much to us that Love in some rightly Qualified sence is God XIX But we are to omit the Fabulous Age and to descend to the Philosophical to enquire there who they were among the professed Philosophers who Atheized in that manner before described It is true indeed that Aristotle in other Places accuses Democritus and Leucippus of the very same thing that is of assigning only a Material Cause of the Universe and giving no account of the Original of Motion but yet it is certain that these were not the Persons intended by him here Those which he speaks of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some of the first and most ancient Philosophers of all Moreover it appears by his Description of them that they were such as did not Philosophize in the way of Atoms but resolved all things whatsoever in the Universe into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matter and the Passions or Affections Qualities and Forms of Matter so that they were not Atomical but Hylopathian Philosophers These two the old Materialists and the Democriticks did both alike derive all things from Dead and Stupid Matter fortuitously Moved and the Difference between them was only this that the Democriticks manag'd this business in the way of Atoms the other in that more vulgar way of Qualities and Forms So that indeed this is really but one and the same Atheistick Hypothesis in two several Schemes And as one of them is called the Atomick Atheism so the other for Distinctions sake may be called the Hylopathian XX. Now Aristotle tells us plainly that these Hylopathian Atheists of his were all the first Philosophers of the Ionick Order and Succession before Anaxagoras Whereof Thales being the Head he is consentaneously thereunto by Aristotle made to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince and Leader of this kind of Atheistical Philosophy he deriving all things whatsoever as Homer had done before him from Water and acknowledging no other Principle but the Fluid Matter Notwithstanding which Accusation of Aristotle's Thales is far otherwise represented by good Authors Cicero telling us that besides Water which he made to be the Original of all Corporeal things he asserted also Mind for another Principle which formed all things out of the Water and Laertius and Plutarch recording that he was thought to be the first of all Philosophers who determined Souls to be Immortal He is said also to have affirmed that God was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the oldest of all things and that the World was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Workmanship of God Clemens likewise tells us that being asked 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether any of a mans Actions could be concealed from the Deity he replied not so much as any Thought Moreover Laertius further writes of him that he held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the World was animated and full of Daemons Lastly Aristotle himself elsewhere speaks of him as a Theist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some think saith he that Soul and Life is mingled with the whole Universe and thence perhaps was that of Thales that all things are full of Gods Wherefore we conceive that there is very good reason why Thales should be acquitted from this Accusation of Atheism Only we shall observe the occasion of his being thus differently represented which seems to have been this Because as Laertius and Themistius intimate he left no Philosophick Writings or Monuments of his own behind him Anaximander being the first of all the Philosophick Writers Whence probably it came to pass that in after times some did interpret his Philosopy one way some another and that he is sometimes represented as a Theist and sometime again as a down-right Atheist But though Thales be thus by good Authority acquitted yet his next Successor Anaximander can by no means be excused from this Imputation and therefore we think it more reasonable to fasten that Title upon him which Aristotle bestows on Thales that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince and Founder of this Atheistick Philosophy who derived all things from Matter in the way of Forms and Qualities he supposing a certain Infinite Materia Prima which was neither Air nor Water nor Fire but indifferent to every thing or a mixture of all to be the only Principle of the Universe and leading a Train of many other Atheists after him such as Hippo surnamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Simplicius and others Anaximines and Diogenes Apolloniates and many more who though they had some petty Differences amongst themselves yet all agreed in this one thing that Matter devoid of Vnderstanding and Life was the first Principle of all things till at length Anaxagoras stopt this Atheistick Current amongst these Ionick Philosophers introducing Mind as a Principle of the Universe XXI But there is a Passage in Aristotle's Physicks which seems at first sight to contradict this again and to make Anaximander also not to have been an Atheist but a Divine Philosopher Where having declared that several of the Ancient Physiologers made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Infinite to be the Principle of all things he subjoyus these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore there seems to be no Principle of this Infinite but this to be the Principle of other things and to Contain all things and Govern all things as they all say who do not make besides Infinite any other Causes such as Mind or Friendship and that this is the only real Numen or God in the World it it being Immortal and Incorruptible as Anaximander affirms and most of the Physiologers From which Place some Late Writers have confidently concluded that Anaximander with those other Physiologers there mentioned did by Infinite understand God according to the True Notion of him or an Infinite Mind the Efficient Cause of the Universe and not Sensless and Stupid Matter since this could not be said to be Immortal and to Govern all things and consequently that Aristotle grosly contradicts himself in making all those Ionick Philosophers before Anaxagoras to have been Mere Materialists or Atheists And it is possible that Clemens Alexandrinus also might from this very Passage of Aristotle's not sufficiently considered have been induced to rank Anaximander amongst the Divine Philosophers as he doth in his Protreptick to the Greeks where after
is the Cause of those other things that are Made something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was Self-originated and Self-existing and which is as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incorruptible and Vndestroyable as Ingenerable whose Existence therefore must needs be Necessary because if it were supposed to have happened by Chance to exist from Eternity then it might as well happen again to Cease to Be. Wherefore all the Question now is what is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Ingenerable and Incorruptible Self-originated and Self-existent Thing which is the Cause of all other things that are Made IV. Now there are Two Grand Opinions Opposite to one another concerning it For first some contend that the only Self-existent Vnmade and Incorruptible Thing and First Principle of all things is Sensless Matter that is Matter either perfectly Dead and Stupid or at least devoid of all Animalish and Conscious Life But because this is really the Lowest and most Imperfect of all Beings Others on the contrary judge it reasonable that the First Principle and Original of all things should be that which is Most Perfect as Aristotle observes of Pherecydes and his Followers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they made the First Cause and Principle of Generation to be the Best and then apprehending that to be endewed with Conscious Life and Vnderstanding is much a Greater Perfection than to be devoid of both as Balbus in Cicero declares upon this very occasion Nec dubium quin quod Animans sit habeátque Mentem Rationem Sensum id sit melius quà m id quod his careat they therefore conclude That the only Vnmade thing which was the Principle Cause and Original of all other things was not Sensless Matter but a Perfect Conscious Vnderstanding Nature or Mind And these are they who are strictly and properly called Theists who affirm that a Perfectly Conscious Vnderstanding Being or Mind existing of it self from Eternity was the Cause of all other things and they on the contrary who derive all things from Sensless Matter as the First Original and deny that there is any Conscious Vnderstanding Being Self-existent or Vnmade are those that are properly called Atheists Wherefore the true and genuine Idea of God in general is this A Perfect Conscious Vnderstanding Being or Mind Existing of it self from Eternity and the Cause of all other things V. But it is here observable that those Atheists who deny a God according to this True and Genuine Notion of him which we have declared do often Abuse the Word calling Sensless Matter by that Name Partly perhaps as indeavouring thereby to decline that odious and ignominious name of Atheists and partly as conceiving that whatsoever is the First Principle of things Ingenerable and Incorruptible and the Cause of all other things besides it self must therefore needs be the Divinest Thing of all Wherefore by the word God these mean nothing else but that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnmade or Self-existent and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or First Principle of things Thus it was before observed that Anaximander called Infinite Matter devoid of all manner of Life the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God and Pliny the Corporeal World endewed with nothing but a Plastick Vnknowing Nature Numen as also others in Aristotle upon the same account called the Inanimate Elements Gods as Supposed First Principles of things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these are also Gods And indeed Aristotle himself seems to be guilty of this miscarriage of Abusing the word God after this manner when speaking of Love and Chaos as the two first Principles of things he must according to the Laws of Grammar be understood to call them both Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning these two Gods how they ought to be ranked and which of them is to be placed first whether Love or Chaos is afterwards to be resolved Which Passage of Aristotle's seems to agree with that of Epicharmus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Chaos is said to have been made the first of the Gods unless we should rather understand him thus That Chaos was said to have been made before the Gods And this Abuse of the Word God is a thing which the learned Origen took notice of in his Book against Celsus where he speaks of that Religious Care which ought to be had about the use of Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He therefore that hath but the least consideration of these things will take a Religious care that he give not improper names to things left he should fall into a like miscarriage with those who attribute the name of God to Inanimate and Sensless matter Now according to this false and spurious Notion of the word God when it is taken for any Supposed First Principle or Self-existent Unmade Thing whatsoever that be there neither is nor can be any such things as an Atheist since whosoever hath but the least dram of Reason must needs acknowledge that Something or other Existed from Eternity Vnmade and was the Cause of those other things that are Made But that Notion or Idea of God according to which some are Atheists and some Theists is in the strictest sence of it what we have already declared A Perfect Mind or Consciously Vnderstanding Nature Self-existent from Eternity and the Cause of all other things The genuine Theists being those who make the First Original of all things Universally to be a Consciously Vnderstanding Nature or Perfect Mind but the Atheists properly such as derive all things from Matter either perfectly Dead and Stupid or else devoid of all Conscious and Animalish Life VI. But that we may more fully and punctually declare the true Idea of God we must here take notice of a certain Opinion of some Philosophers who went as it were in a middle betwixt both the Former and neither made Matter alone nor God the Sole Principle of all things but joyned them both together and held Two First Principles or Self-existent Vnmade Beings independent upon one another God and the Matter Amongst whom the Stoicks are to be reckoned who notwithstanding because they held that there was no other Substance besides Body strangely confounded themselves being by that means necessitated to make their Two First Principles the Active and the Passive to be both of them really but One and the self-same Substance their Doctrine to this purpose being thus declared by Cicero Naturam dividebant in Res Duas ut Altera esset Efficiens Altera autem quasi huic se praebens ex qua Efficeretur aliquid In eo quod Efficeret Vim esse censebant in eo quod Efficeretur Materiam quandam in Vtroque tamen Vtrumque Neque enim Materiam ipsam ohaerere potuisse si nullâ Vi contineretur neque Vim sine aliqua Materia
Eternal must therefore needs suppose them to be also Vnmade or Self-existent For Aristotle who asserted the Eternity of the World and consequently also of those Gods of his the Heavenly Bodie did not for all that suppose them to be Self-existent or First Principles but all to depend upon One Principle or Original Deity And indeed the true meaning of that Question in Herodotus Whether the Gods were Generated or Existed all of them from Eternity is as we suppose really no other than that of Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether the World were Made or Vnmade and whether it had a Temporary beginning or existed such as it is from Eternity which will be more fully declared afterwards But ever since Hesiod's and Homer's time that the Theogonia or Generation of the Gods was settled and generally believed amongst the Greeks it is certain that they could not possibly think all their Gods Eternal and therefore much less Vnmade and Self-existent But though we have thus clearly proved that all the Pagan Gods were not Universally accounted by them so many Vnmade Self-existent Deities they acknowledging a Theogonia or a Generation of Gods yet it may be suspected notwithstanding that they might suppose a Multitude of them also and not only One to have been Vnmade from Eternity and Self-existent Wherefore we add in the next place that no such thing does at all appear neither as that the Pagans or any others did ever publickly or professedly assert a Multitude of Vnmade Self-existent Deities For First it is plain concerning the Hesiodian Gods which were all the Gods of the Greekish Pagans that either there was but One of them only Self-existent or else None at all Because Hesiods Gods were either all of them derived from Chaos or the Floting Water Love it self being Generated likewise out of it according to that Aristophanick Tradition before mentioned or else Love was supposed to be a distinct Principle from Chaos namely the Active Principle of the Universe from whence together with Chaos all the Theogonia and Cosmogonia was derived Now if the Former of these were true that Hesiod supposed all his Gods Universally to have been Generated and sprung Originally from Chaos or the Ocean then it is plain that notwithstanding all that Rabble of Gods muster'd up by him he could be no other than One of those Atheistiâ—k Theogonists beforementioned and really acknowledged no God at all according to the True Idea of him he being not a Theist who admits of no Self-existent Deity But if the Latter be true that Hesiod supposed Love to be a Principle distinct from Chaos namely the Active Principle of the Universe and derived all his other Gods from thence he was then a right Paganick Theist such as acknowledged indeed Many Gods but only One of them Vnmade and Self-existent all the rest being Generated or Created by that One. Indeed it appears from those Passages of Aristotle before cited by us that that Philosopher had been sometimes divided in his Judgment concerning Hesiod where he should 〈◊〉 rank him whether among the Atheists or the Theists For in his Book de Coelo he ranks him amongst those who made all things to be Generated and Corrupted besides the Bare Substance of the Matter that is amongst the Absolute Atheists and look'd upon him as a Ringleader of them but in his Metaphysicks upon further thoughts suspects that many of those who made Love the Châ—â—fest of the Gods were Theists they supposing it to be a First Principle in the Universe or the Active Cause of things and that not only Parmenides but also Hesiod was such Which Latter Opinion of his is by far the more probable and therefore embraced by Plutarch who somewhere determines Hesiod to have asserted One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vnmade Deity as also by the ancient Scholiastâ—â—â— upon him writ thus that Hesiods Love was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Heavenly Love which is also God that other Love that was born of Venus being Junior But Joannes Diaconus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Love here saith he we must not understand Venus her Son whose Mother was as yet Vnborn but another more ancient Love which I take to be the Active Cause or Principle of Motion Naturally inserted into things Where though he do not seem to suppose this Love to be God himself yet he conceives it to be an Active Principle in the Universe derived from God and not from Matter But this Opinion will be further confirmed afterward The next considerable appearance of a Multitude of Self-existent Deities seems to be in the Valentinian Thirty Gods and Aeons which have been taken by some for such but it is certain that these were all of them save One Generated they being derived by that Phantastick Devizer of them from One Self-originated Deity called Bythus For thus Epiphanius informs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Valentinus would also introduce Thirty Gods and Aeons and Heavens the first of which is Bythus he meaning thereby an Unfathomable Depth and Profundity and therefore this Bythus was also called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Highest and Ineffable Father We do indeed acknowledge that there have been some who have really asserted a Duplicity of Gods in the sence declared that is of Animalish or Perceptive Beings Self-existent One as the Principle of Good and the other of Evil. And this Ditheism of theirs seems to be the nearest approch that was ever really made to Polytheism Unless we should here give heed to Plutarch who seems to make the ancient Persians besides their Two Gods the Good and the Evil or Oromasdes and Arimanius to have asserted also a Third Middle Deity called by them Mithras or to some Ecclesiastick Writers who impute a Trinity of Gods to Marcion though Tertullian be yet more Liberal and encrease the Number to an Ennead For those that were commonly called Tritheists being but mistaken Christians and Trinitarians fall not under this Consideration Now as for that forementioned Ditheism or Opinion of Two Gods a Good and an Evil one it is evident that its Original sprung from nothing else but First a Firm Perswasion of the Essential Goodness of the Deity together with a Conceit that the Evil that is in the world was altogether Inconsistent and Vnreconcilable with the same and that therefore for the salving of this Phenomenon it was absolutely necessary to suppose another Animalish Principle Self-existent or an Evil God Wherefore as these Ditheists as to all that which is Good in the World held a Monarchy or one Sole Principle and Original so it is plain that had it not heen for this business of Evil which they conceived could not be salved any other way they would never have asserted any more Principles or Gods than One. The chiefest and most eminent Assertors of which Ditheistick Doctrine of Two Self-existent Animalish Principles in the Universe a Good God and an Evil Daemon were the Marcionites and the
knowledge of what belonged to the Persian Religion Wherefore from the Authority of Eubulus we may well conclude also that notwithstanding the Sun was generally worship'd by the Persians as a God yet Zoroaster and the ancient Magi who were best initiated in the Mithraick Mysteries asserted another Deity Superior to the Sun for the True Mithras such as was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Maker and Father of all things or of the whole World whereof the Sun is a part However these also look'd upon the Sun as the most lively Image of this Deity in which it was worshipped by them as they likewise worship'd the same Deity Symbolically in Fire as Maximus Tyrius informeth us agreeable to which is that in the Magick Oracles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are the Off-spring of one Fire that is of One Supreme Deity And Julian the Emperor was such a Devout Sun-worshipper as this who acknowledged besides the Sun another Incorporeal Deity transcendent to it Nevertheless we deny not but that others amongst the Persians who were not able to conceive of any thing Incorporeal might as well as Heraclitus Hippocrates and the Stoicks amongst the Greeks look upon the Fiery Substance of the whole World and especially the Sun as Animated and Intellectual to be the Supreme Deity and the only Mithras according to that Inscription Deo Soli Invicto Mithrae However Mithras whether supposed to be Corporeal or Incorporeal was unquestionably taken by the Persians for the Supreme Deity according to that of Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mithras The First God among the Persians who was therefore called in the Inscription Omnipotent Omnipotenti Deo Mithrae Which First Supreme and Omnipotent God was acknowledged by Artabanus the Persian in his Conference with Themistocles in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amongst those many excellent Laws of ours the most excellent is this that the King is to be honoured and worshipped religiously as the Image of that God which conserveth all things Scaliger with some others though we know not upon what certain grounds affirm that Mither in the Persian Language signified Great and Mithra Greater or Greatest according to which Mithras would be all one with Deus Major or Maximus The Greatest God Wherefore we conclude that either Herodotus was mistaken in making the Persian Mithras the same with Mylitta or Venus And perhaps such a mistake might be ocasioned from hence because the Word Mader or Mether in the Persian Language signified Mother as Mylitta in the Syrian did or else rather that this Venus of his is to be understood of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the heavenly Venus or Love and thus indeed is she there called in Herodotus Vrania by which though some would understand nothing else but the Moon yet we conceive the Supreme Deity True Heavenly love the Mother and Nurse of all things to have been primarily signified therein But Zoroaster and the ancient Magi are said to have called the Supreme God also by another name viz. Oromasdes or Ormisdas however Oromasdes according to Plato seems to have been the Father of Zoroaster Thus besides Plutarch and others Porphyrius in the Life of Pythagoras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which we would understand thus Pythagoras exhorted men chiefly to the Love of Truth as being that alone which could make them resemble God he having learn'd from the Magi that God whom they call Oromasdes was as to Corporeals most like to Light and as to Incorporeals to Truth Though perhaps some would interpret these words otherwise so as to signifie Oromasdes to have been really compounded of Soul and Body and therefore nothing else but the Animated Sun as Mithras is commonly supposed also to have been But the contrary hereunto is plainly implied in those Zoroastrian Traditions or Fables concerning Oromasdes recorded in Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Oromasdes was as far removed from the Sun as the Sun was from the Earth Wherefore Oromasdes was according to the Persians a Deity superior to the Sun God properly as the Fountain of Light and Original of all Good and the same with Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or First Good From whom the Persians as Scaliger informs us called the First Day of every Month Ormasda probably because he was the Beginning of all things And thus Zoroaster and the ancient Magi acknowledged one and the same Supreme Deity under the different names of Mithras and Oromasdes But it is here observable that the Persian Mithras was commonly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three-fold or Treble Thus Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Persian Magi to this very day celebrate a Festival Solemnity in honour of the Triplasian that is the Three-fold or Triplicated Mithras And something very like to this is recorded in Plutarch concerning Oromasdes also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oromasdes Thrice augmented or Triplicated himself from whence it further appears that Mithras and Oromasdes were really one and the same Numen Now the Scholiasts upon Dionysius pretend to give a reason of this Denomination of the Persian Mithras Triplasios or Threefold from the Miracle done in Hezekiah's Time when the Day was encreased and almost Triplicated as if the Magi then observing the same had thereupon given the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Threefold to their God Mithras that is the Sun and appointed an Anniversary Solemnity for a Memorial thereof But Learned men have already shewed the Foolery of this Conceit and therefore it cannot well be otherwise concluded but that here is a manifest Indication of a Higher Mystery viz. a Trinity in the Persian Theology which Gerardus J. Vossius would willingly understand according to the Christian Hypothesis of a Divine Triunity or Three Hypostases in one and the same Deity whose Distinctive Characters are Goodness Wisdom and Power But the Magical or Zoroastrian Oracles seem to represent this Persian Trinity more agreeably to that Pythagorick or Platonick Hypothesis of Three Distinct Substances Subordinate one to another the Two First whereof are thus expressed in the following Verses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this Sence The Father or First Deity perfected all things and delivered them to the Second Mind who is that whom the Nations of men commonly take for the First Which Oracle Psellus thus glosseth upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First Father of the Trinity having produced this whole Creation delivered it to Mind or Intellect Which Mind the whole Generation of Mankind being ignorant of the Paternal Transcendency commonly call the First God After which Psellus takes notice of the difference here betwixt this Magical or Chaldaick Theology and that of Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But our Christian Doctrine is contrary hereunto namely thus That the First Mind or Intellect being the Son of the Great Father made the whole Creation For the Father in the Mosaick Writings speaks to his Son the Idea
Greatest Wisdom in him And Lastly to be able to effect and bring to pass all those things which he had thus decreed argues an insuperable Power Maximus Tyrius in the close of his first Dissertation gives us this short Representation of his own Theology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will now more plainly declare my sence by this similitude Imagine in your mind a great and powerful Kingdom or Principality in which all the rest freely and with one consent conspire to direct their actions agreeably to the will and command of one Supreme King the Oldest and the best And then suppose the bounds and limits of this Empire not to be the River Halys nor the Hellespont nor the Meotian Lake nor the Shores of the Ocean but Heaven above and the Earth beneath Here then let that great King sit Immovable prescribing Laws to all his subjects in which consists their safety and security the Consorts of his Empire being many both Visible and Invisible Gods some of which that are nearest to him and immediately attending on him are in the highest Royal dignity feasting as it were at the same table with him others again are their Ministers Attendants and a Third Sort inferiour to them both And thus you see how the order and chain of this government descends down by steps and degrees from the Supreme God to the Earth and Men. In which Resemblance we have a plain acknowledgment of One Supreme God the Monarch of the whole World and Three subordinate ranks of Inferiour Gods as his Ministers in the Government of the World whom that Writer there also calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods the Sons and Friends of God Aristides the famous Adrianean Sophist and Orator in his first Oration or Hymn vowed to Jupiter after he had escaped a great tempest is so full to the purpose that nothing can be more he after his Proeme beginning thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Jupiter made all things and all things whatsoever exist are the works of Jupiter Rivers and Earth and Sea and Heaven and what are between these and Gods and Men and all Animals whatsoever is perceivable either by sense or by the mind But Jupiter first of all made himself for he was not Educated in the flowery and odoriferous Caves of Crete neither was Saturn ever about to devour him nor instead of him did he swallow down a stone For Jupiter was never in danger nor will he be ever in danger of any thing Neither is there any thing older than Jupiter no more than there are sons older than their parents or works than their Opificers But he is the First and the Oldest and the Prince of all things he being made from himself nor can it be declared when he was made for he was from the beginning and ever will be his own Father and greater than to have been begotten from another As he produced Minerva from his brain and needed no wedlock in order thereunto so before this did he produce himself from himself needing not the help of any other thing for his being But on the contrary all things began to be from him and no man can tell the time since there was not then any time when there was nothing else besides and no work can be older than the maker of it Thus was Jupiter the beginning of all things and all things were from Jupiter who is better than Time which had its beginning together with the World And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All the several kinds of Gods are but a Defluxion and Derivation from Jupiter and according to Homer 's Chain all things are connected with him and depend upon him He amongst the first produced Love and Necessity Two the most powerful Holders of things together that they might make all things firmly to cohere He made Gods to be the Curators of men and he made men to be the Worshippers and Servers of those Gods All things are every where full of Jupiter and the Benefits of all the other Gods are his work and to be attributed to him they being done in compliance with that order which he had prescribed them It is certain that all the Latter Philosophers after Christianity whether Platonists or Peripateticks though for the most part they asserted the Eternity of the World yet Universally agreed in the acknowledgment of One Supreme Deity the Cause of the whole World and of all the other Gods And as Numenius Plotinus Amelius Porphyrius Proclus Damascius and others held also a Trinity of Divine Hypostases so had some of those Philosophers excellent Speculations concerning the Deity as particularly Plotinus who notwithstanding that he derived Matter and All things from One Divine Principle yet was a Contender for Many Gods Thus in his Book inscribed against the Gnosticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every man ought to endeavour with all his might to become as Good as may be but yet not to think himself to be the only thing that is good but that there are also other Good men in the World and Good Demons but much more Gods who though inhabiting this inferiour world yet look up to that Superiour and most of all the Prince of this Vniverse that most Happy Soul From whence he ought to ascend yet higher and to praise those Intelligible Gods but above all that great King and Monarch declaring his Greatness and Majesty by the Multitude of Gods which are under him For this is not the part of them who know the power of God to contract all into one but to shew forth all that Divinity which himself hath displayed who remaining One makes Many depending on him which are by him and from him For this whole World is by him and looks up perpetually to him as also doth every one of the Gods in it And Themistius the Peripatetick who was so far from being a Christian that as Petavius probably conjectures he perstringes our Saviour Christ under the Name of Empedocles for making himself a God doth not only affirm that one and the same Supreme God was worshipped by Pagans and the Christians and all Nations though in different manners but also that God was delighted with this Variety of Religions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Author and Prince of the Vniverse seems to be delighted with this Variety of Worship He would have the Syrians worship him One way the Greeks another and the Egyptians another neither do the Syrians or Christians themselves all agree they being subdivided into many Sects We shall conclude therefore with this full Testimony of St. Cyril in his First Book against Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest to all that amongst those who Philosophize in the Greek way it is Vniversally acknowledged that there is One God the Maker of the Vniverse and who is by Nature
Egyptian Inscription in the Temple of this God I am all that Was Is and Shall be And accordingly Athenagoras tells us that Athena of the Greeks was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wisdom passing and diffusing it self through all things as in the Book of Wisdom it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Artifex of all things and is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pass and move through all things Wherefore this Athena or Minerva of the Pagans was either the First Supreme Deity a Perfect and Infinite Mind the Original of all things or else a Second Divine Hypostasis the immediate Off-spring and First-begotten of that First Original Diety Thus Aristides in his Oration upon Minerva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore all the most excellent things are in Minerva and from her but to speak briefly of her this is the only immediate off-spring of the only Maker and King of all things For he had none of equal honour with himself upon whom he should beget her and therefore retiring into himself he begot her and brought her forth from himself So that this is the only Genuine Off-spring of the First Father of all And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pindar also affirmeth concerning Minerva that sitting at the Right hand of her Father she there receiveth commands from him to be delivered to the Gods For she is greater than the Angels and commandeth them some one thing and some another accordingly as she had first received of her Father she performing the office of an Interpreter and Introducer to the Gods when it is needful Where we may observe by the way that this word Angel came to be in use amongst the Pagans from Jews and Christians about this very age that Aristides lived in after which we meet with it frequently in the writings of their Philosphers Lastly Aristides thus concludeth his Oration upon Minerva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that from what we have said will determine that Minerva is as it were the Power and Vertue of Jupiter himself will not err Wherefore not to enumerate all the minute things belonging to Minerva we conclude thus concerning her that all the works of Jupiter are common with Jupiter and Minerva Wherefore that conceit which the Learned and Industrious Vossius somewhere seems to favour that the Pagans Vniversal Numen was no other than a Sensless Nature or Spermatick Reason of the whole World undirected by any Higher Intellectual Principle which is indeed no better than downright Atheism is plainly confuted from hence they making Wisdom and Vnderstanding under these Names of Neith Athena and Minerva to be either the Absolutely Supreme Deity or the First-begotten Off-spring of it To Minerva may be added Apollo who though often taken for the Sensible Sun Animated and so an Inferiour Deity yet was not always understood in this sence nor indeed then when he was reckoned amongst the Twelve Consentes because the Sun was afterwards added to them in the number of the Eight Select Gods And that he was sometimes taken for the Supreme Vniversal Numen the Maker of the Sun and of the whole World is plainly testified by Plutarch who is a competent Witness in this Case he being a Priest of this Apollo writing thus concerning him in his Defect of Oracles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether Apollo be the Sun or whether he be the Lord and Father of the Sun placed far above all sensible and Corporeal Nature it is not likely that he should now deny his Oracles to them to whom himself is the cause of Generation and Nourishment of Life and understanding Moreover Vrania Aphrodite the Heavenly Venus or Love was a Vniversal Numen also or another name of God according to his more General Notion as Comprehending the whole World it being the same with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Love which Orpheu◠and others in Aristotle made to be the First Original of all things For it is certain that the Ancients distinguished concerning a double Venus and Love Thus Pausanias in Plato's Symposium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are Two Venuses and therefore two Loves one the Older and without a Mother the Daughter of Uranus or Heaven which we call the Heavenly Venus another younger begotten from Jupiter and Dione which we call the Vulgar Venus and accordingly are there of necessity two Loves answering to these two Venuses the one Vulgar and the other Heavenly The Elder of these two Venuses is in Plato said to be Seniour to Japhet and Saturn and by Orpheus the Oldest of all things and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First Begetter of all Upon which account perhaps it was called by the Oriental Nations Mylitta or Genitrix as being the Fruitful Mother of all This was also the same with Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First Fair the Cause of all Pulchritude Order and Harmony in the World And Pausanias the Writer tells us that there were Temples severally erected to each of these Venusses or Loves the Heavenly and the Vulgar and that Vrania or the Heavenly Venus was so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Love belonging to it was pure and free from all corporeal affection which as it is in men is but a participation of that First Vrania or Heavenly Venus and Love God himself And thus is Venus described by Euripides in Stobaeus as the Supreme Numen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To this sence Do you not see how great a God this Venus is but you are never able to declare her Greatness nor to measure the Vast extent thereof For this is she which nourisheth both Thee and Me and all Mortals and which makes Heaven and Earth friendly to conspire together c. But by Ovid this is more fully expressed in his Fastorum Illa quidem Totum dignissima temperat Orbem Illa tenet Nullo regna minora Deo Juraque dat Coelo Terrae Natalibus Vndis Perque suos initus continet omne genus Illa Deos omnes longum enumerare creavit Illa Satis Causas Arboribusque dedit Where all the Gods are said to have been Created or Made by Venus that is by the One Supreme Deity But lastly this is best of all performed by Severinus Boetius a Christian Philosopher and Poet in this manner Quod Mundus Stabili fide Concordes variat vices Quod Pugnantia Semina Foedus perpetuum tenent Quos Phoebus roseum diem Curru provehit aureo c. Hanc rerum seriem ligat Terras ac pelagus regens Et Coelo imperitans AMOR. c. Hic si sroena remiserit Quicquid nunc amat invicem Bellum continuò geret Hic sancto populos quoque Junctos foedere continet Hic Conjugii Sacrum Castis nectit Amoribus c. O felix hominum genus Si vestros animos AMOR Quo Coelum regitur regat And to this
Vrania or Heavenly Venus was near of kin also that Third Venus in Pausanias called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the Latins Venus Verticordia pure and chaste Love expulsive of all unclean Lusts to which the Romans consecrated a Statue as Valerius M. tells us L. 8. c. 15. quo facilius Virginum Mulierumque mentes à libidine ad pudicitiam converterentur To this end that the minds of the Female Sex might then the better be converted from Lust and Wantonness to Chastity We conclude therefore that Vrania or the Heavenly Venus was sometimes amongst the Pagans a Name for the Supreme Deity as that which is the most Amiable Being and First Pulchritude the most Benign and Fecund Begetter of all things and the constant Harmonizer of the whole World Again though Vulcan according to the most common and Vulgar Notion of him be to be reckoned amongst the Particular Gods yet had he also another more Vniversal Consideration For Zeno in Laertius tells us that the Supreme God was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vulcan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Hegemonick acted in the Artificial Fire Now Plutarch and Stobaeus testifie that the Stoicks did not only call Nature but also the Supreme Deity it self the Architect of the whole world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Artificial Fire they conceiving him to be Corporeal And Jamblichus making Phtha to be the same Supreme God amongst the Egyptians with Osiris and Hammon or rather more properly all of them alike the Soul of the World tells us that Hephaestus in the Greekish Theology was the same with the Egyptian Phtha 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amonst the Greeks Hephaestus or Vulcan answers to the Egyptian Phtha Wherefore as the Egyptians by Phtha so the Greeks by Hephaestus sometimes understood no other than the Supreme God or at least the Soul of the World as Artificially framing all things Furthermore Seneca gives us yet other Names of the Supreme Deity according to the Sence of the Stoicks Hunc Liberum Patrem Herculem ac Mercurium nostri putant Liberum Patrem quia Omnium Parens c. Herculem quod vis ejus invicta sit Mercurium quia Ratio penes illum est Numerusque Ordo Scientia Furthermore our Philosophers take this Auctor of all things to be Liber Pater Hercules and Mercury The First because he is the Parent of all things c. the Second because his Force and Power is unconquerable c. And the Third because there is in and from him Reason Number Order and Knowledge And now we see already that the Supreme God was sufficiently Polyonymous amongst the Pagans and that all these Jupiter Pan Janus Genius Saturn Coelus Minerva Apollo Aphrodite Vrania Hephaestus Liber Pater Hercules and Mercury were not so many Really Distinct and Substantial Gods much less Self-existent and Independent Ones but only several Names of that One Supreme Vniversal and All-comprehending Numen according to several Notions and Considerations of him But besides these there were many other Pagan Gods called by Servius Dii Speciales Special or Particular Gods which cannot be thought neither to have been so many Really Distinct and Substantial Beings that is Natural Gods much less Self-existent and Independent but only so many several Names or Notions of One and the same Supreme Deity according to certain Particular Powers and Manifestations of it It is true that some late Christian Writers against the Polytheism and Idolatry of the Pagans have charged them with at least a Trinity of Independent Gods viz. Jupiter Neptune and Pluto as sharing the Government of the whole world amongst these Three and consequently acknowledging no One Vniversal Numen Notwithstanding which it is certain that according to the more Arcane Doctrine and Cabala of the Pagans concerning the Natural True Theology these Three considered as Distinct and Independent Gods were accounted but Dii Poetici Commentitii Poetical and Fictitious Gods and they were really esteemed no other than so many Several Names and Notions of One and the same Supreme Numen as acting variously in those several parts of the world the Heaven the Sea the Earth and Hell For First as to Pluto and Hades called also by the Latins Orcus and Dis which latter word seems to have been a contraction of Dives to answer the Greek Pluto as Balbus in Cicero attributes to him Omnem Vim terrenam all Terrene Power so others commonly assign him the Regimen of Separate Souls after Death Now it is certain that according to this latter Notion it was by Plato understood no otherwise than as a Name for that Part of the Divine Providence which exercises it self upon the Souls of men after Death This Ficinus observed upon Plato's Cratylus Animadverte prae caeteris Plutonem hic significare praecipuè Providentiam Divinam ad Separatas Animas pertinentem You are to take notice that by Pluto is here meant that part of Divine Providence which belongeth to Separate Souls For this is that which according to Plato binds and detains pure Souls in that separate state with the best Vinculum of all which is not Necessity but Love and Desire they being ravished and charmed as it were with those pure delights which they there enjoy And thus is he also to be understood in his Book of Laws writing in this manner concerning Pluto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither ought Military men to be troubled or offended at this God Pluto but highly to honour him as who always is the most beneficent to mankind For I affirm with the greatest seriousness that the Vnion of the Soul with this Terrestrial body is never better than the Dissolution or Separation of them Pluto therefore according to Plato is nothing else but a Name for that Part of the Divine Providence that is exercised upon the Souls of men in their Separation from these Earthly Bodies And upon this account was Pluto stiled by Virgil The Stygian Jupiter But by others Pluto together with Ceres is taken in a larger sence for the Manifestation of the Deity in this whole Terrestrial Globe and thus is the Writer De Mundo to be understood when he tells us that God or Jupiter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both Celestial and Terrestrial he being denominated from every Nature forasmuch as he is the cause of all things Pluto therefore is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Terrestrial also as well as the Stygian and Subterranean Jupiter and that other Jupiter which is distinguished both from Pluto and Neptune is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Heavenly Jupiter God as manifesting himself in the Heavens Hence is it that Zeus and Hades Jupiter and Pluto are made to be one and the same thing in that Passage which Julian cites as an Oracle of Apollo but others impute to Orpheus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter and Pluto are one and the same God As also that Euripides in a place
the Ruling or Governing Principle being put for the Effect or that which was Ruled and Governed by it And thus was War frequently styled Mars and that of Terence may be taken also in this Sence Sine Cerere Libero friget Venus And Plutarch who declares his great dislike of this kind of Language conceives that there was no more at first in it than thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As we when one buyes the Books of Plato commonly say that he buyes Plato and when one acts the Plays of Menander that he acts Menander so did the ancients not spare to call the Gifts and Effects of the Gods by the names of those Gods spectively thereby honouring them also for their Vtility But he grants that afterward this Language was by ignorant Persons abused and carried on further and that not without great Impiety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their followers mistaking them and thereupon ignorantly attributing the Passions of Fruits their Appearances and Occultations to the Gods themselves that preside over them and so not only calling them but also thinking them to be the Generations and Corruptions of the Gods have by this means filled themselves with absurd and wicked Opinions Where Plutarch well condemns the Vulgar both amongst the Egyptians and Greeks for that in their mournful Solemnities they sottishly attributed to the Gods the Passions belonging to the fruits of the earth thereby indeed making them to be Gods Nevertheless the Inanimate Parts of the World and Things of Nature were frequently Deified by the Pagans not only thus Metonymically but also in a further Sence as Cicero plainly declares Tum illud quod erat à Deo natum Nomine ipsius Dei nuncupabant ut cum Fruges Cererem appellamus Vinum autem Liberum Tum autem Res ipsa in qua Vis inest Major sic appellatur ut ea ipsa Res nominetur Deus Both that which proceeds from God is called by the name of a God as Corn is sometimes thus called Ceres and Wine Liber and also whatsoever hath any greater Force in it That thing it self is often called a God too Philo also thus represents the Religion of the Pagans as first Deifying Corporeal Inanimate Things and then bestowing those Proper Personal Names upon them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Some have Deified the Four Elements the Earth the Water the Air and the Fire Some the Sun and the Moon and the Planets and Fixed Stars Others the Heaven others the whole World But that Highest and most Ancient Being the Parent of all things the Chief Prince of this great City and the Emperour of this invincible Army who governeth all things salutiferously Him have they covered concealed and obscured by bestowing Counterfeit Personal Names of Gods upon each of these things For the Earth they called Proserpina Pluto and Ceres the Sea Neptune under whom they place many Demons and Nymphs also as his Inferiour Ministers the Air Juno the Fire Vulcan the Sun Apollo the Moon Diana c. and dissecting the Heaven into Two Hemispheres one above the Earth the other under it they call these the Dioscuri feigning them to live alternately one one day and the other another We deny not here but that the Four Elements as well as the Sun Moon and Stars were supposed by some of the Pagans to be Animated with Particular Souls of their own which Ammianus Marcellinus seems principally to call Spiritus Elementorum the Spirits of the Elements worshipped by Julian and upon that account to be so many Inferiour Gods themselves Notwithstanding which that the Inanimate Parts of these were also Deified by the Pagans may be concluded from hence because Plato who in his Cratylus etymologizeth Dionysus from Giving of Wine and elsewhere calls the fruits of the earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gifts of Ceres doth himself nevertheless in compliance with this Vulgar Speech call Wine and Water as mingled together in a Glass or Cup to be drunk Gods where he affirmeth that a City ought to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so temper'd as in a Cup where the furious Wine poured out bubbles and sparkles but being Corrected by another Sober God that is by Water both together make a good and moderate Potion Cicero also tells us that before the Roman Admirals went to Sea they were wont to offer up a Sacrifice to the Waves But of this more afterward However it is certain that meer Accidents and Affections of Things in Nature were by these Pagans commonly Personated and Deified as Time in Sophocles his Electra is a God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Time is an easie God and Love in Plato's Symposium where it is wondred at that no Poet had ever made a Hymn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To Love being such and so great a God Though the same Plato in his Philebus when Protarchus had called Pleasure a Goddess too was not willing to comply so far there with Vulgar Speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My fear O Protarchus concerning the Names of the Gods is extraordinary great Wherefore as to Venus I am willing to call her what she pleases to be called but Pleasure I know is a Various and Multiform thing Wherefore it cannot be denied but that the Pagans did in some sence or other Deifie or Theologize all the Parts of the World and Things of Nature Which we conceive to have been done at first upon no other Ground than this because God was supposed by them not only to Permeate and Pervade all things to be Diffused thorough All and to Act in and upon All but also to be Himself in a manner All things which they expressed after this way by Personating the Things of Nature Severally and bestowing the Names of Gods and Goddesses upon them Only we shall here observe that this was done especially besides the Greater Parts of the World to Two Sorts of things First such in which Humane Vtility was most concerned Thus Cicero Multae aliae Naturae Deorum ex Magnis Beneficiis eorum non sine causa à Graeciae Sapientibus à Majoribus nostris constitutae nominataeque sunt Many other Natures of Gods have been constituted and nominated both by the wise men of Greece and by our Ancestors meerly for the great Benefits received from them The Reason whereof is thus given by him Quia quicquid magnam Vtilitatem generi afferret humano id non sine Divina Bonitate erga homines fieri arbitrabantur Because they thought that whatsoever brought any great Vtility to mankind this was not without the Divine Goodness Secondly such as were most wonderful and Extraordinary or Surprizing to which that of Seneca seems pertinent Magnorum Fluminum Capita Veneramur Subita ex abdito vasti amnis eruptio Aras habet Coluntur Aquarum Calentium Fontes Stagna quaedam vel Opacitas vel immensa Altitudo
his Language This God and that Person And thus does there seem not to be so great a Difference betwixt the more Genuine Platonists and the ancient Orthodox Fathers in their Doctrine concerning the Trinity as is by many conceived However our Platonick Christian would further add that there is no necessity at all from the Principles of Platonism it self why the Platonists should make any other or more Subordination in their Trinity than the most severely Orthodox Fathers themselves For according to the Common Hypothesis of the Platonists when the Character of the First Hypostasis is supposed by them to be Infinite Goodness of the Second Infinite Wisdom and of the Third Infinite Active Love and Power these not as Accidents and Qualities but as all Substantial it is more easie to conceive that all these are really but One and the same God than how there should be any considerable Inferiority in them But besides this there is another Platonick Hypothesis which St. Austin hinteth from Porphyrius though he professeth he did not well understand it wherein the Third Hypostasis is made to be a certain Middle betwixt the First and Second And this does Proclus also sometimes follow calling the Third in like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Middle Power and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Relation of both the First and Second to one another Which agreeth exactly with that apprehension of some Christians that the Third Hypostasis is as it were the Nexus betwixt the First and the Second and that Love whereby the Father and Son Love each other Now according to this Latter Platonick Hypothesis there would seem to be not so much a Gradation or Descent as a kind of Circulation in the Trinity Upon all which Considerations the Platonick Christian will conclude That though some Junior Platonists have adulterated the Notion of the Trinity yet either there is no such great difference betwixt the Genuine Platonick Trinity righty understood and the Christian or else that as the same might be modell'd and rectified there need not to be But though the Genuine Platonists do thus suppose the Three Hypostases of their Trinity to be all of them not only God but also One God or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Entire Divinity upon which Latter accompt the Whole may be said also by them to have One Singular or Numerical Essence yet notwithstanding must it be acknowledged that they no where suppose each of these Three Hypostases to be Numerically the very same or to have no Distinct Singular Essences of their own this being in their apprehensions directly contradictious to their very Hypothesis it self and all one as if they should affirm them indeed not to be Three Hypostases but only One. Nevertheless the Christian Platonist would here also apologize for them after this manner That the ancient Orthodox Fathers of the Christian Church were Generally of no other perswasion than this that that Essence or Substance of the Godhead which all the Three Persons or Hypostases agree in as each of them is God was not One Singular and Individual but only One Common and Vniversal Essence or Substance that word Substance being used by them as Synonymous with Essence and applied to Universals likewise as it is by the Peripateticks when they call A Man or Animal in General Substantiam Secundam A Second Substance Now this is Evident from hence because these Orthodox Fathers did commonly distinguish in this Controversie of the Trinity betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Essence or Substance of the Godhead and the Hypostases or Persons themselves after this manner namely that the Hypostasis or Person was Singular and Individual but the Essence or Substance Common and Vniversal Thus does Theodoret pronounce of these Fathers in general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the Doctrine of the Fathers as that which is Common differs from that which is Proper and the Genus from the Species or Inviduum so doth Essence or Substance differ from Hypostases that is to say that Essence or Substance of the Godhead which is Common to all the Three Hypostases or whereby each of them is God was concluded by the Fathers not to be One Singular or Individual but One General or Vniversal Essence and Substance Theodoret notwithstanding there acknowledging that no such Distinction was observed by other Greek Writers betwixt those two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence or Substance and Hypostasis as that the Former of them should be restrained to Vniversals only Generical or Specifical Essences or Substances but that this was peculiar to the Christian Fathers in their doctrine concerning the Trinity They in the mean time not denying but that each Hypostasis Prosopon or Person in the Trinity might be said in another sence and in way of Opposition to Sabellius to have its own Singular Individual or Existent Essence also and that there are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Singular Existent Essences in the Deity as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostases an Hypostasis being nothing else to them but an Existent Essence however for distinctions sake they here thought fit thus to limit and appropriate the signification of these Two words that a Singular and Existent Essence should not be called Essence but Hypostasis and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence or Substance should be meant that General or Vniversal Nature of the Godhead only which is Common to all those Three Singular Hypostases or Persons or in which they all agree We might here heap up many more Testimonies for a further Confirmation of this as that of St. Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What Common is to Proper the same is Essence or Substance in the Trinity to the Hypostases But we shall content our selves only with this full acknowledgment of D. Petavius In hoc Vno Graecorum praesertim omnium judicia concordant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Essentiam sive Substantiam aut Naturam quà m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant Generale esse aliquid Commune ac minimè desinitum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verò Proprium Singulare Circumscriptum quod ex illo Communi Peculiaribus quibusdam Notis ac Proprietatibus veluti componitur In this One Thing do the Judgments and Opinions of all the Greeks especially agree that Usia Essence or Substance and Nature which they call Physis in the Trinity is something General Common and Vndetermined but Hypostasis is that which is Proper Singular and Circumscribed and which is as it were compounded and made up of that Common Essence or Substance and certain Peculiar Notes and Properties or Individuating Circumstances But besides this it is further certain that not a few of those Ancient Fathers who were therefore reputed Orthodox because they zealously opposed Arianism did entertain this opinion also That the Three Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity had not
also which Comprehends the whole nature of the World affirmed by Dionysius Halicarnass The word Saturn Hetrurian and Originally from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Hidden called by the Latins Deus Latius the Hidden God whence Italy Latium and the Italians Latins as Worshippers of this Hidden God or the Occult Principle of all things This according to Varro He that Produceth out of himself the Hidden Seeds and Forms of all things and Swalloweth them up into himself again which the Devouring of his Male Children This Sinus quidam Naturae c. a Certain Inward and deep Recess of Nature containing all things within it self as God was sometimes Defined by the Pagans This to S. Austin the same with Jupiter as likewise was Coelus or Uranus in the old Inscription and therefore another Name of God too The Poetick Theology of Jupiters being the Son of Saturn and Saturn the Son of Coelus an Intimation according to Plato of a Trinity of Divine Hypostases Universal Page 485 486 Though Minerva or Athena were sometimes confined to a narrower Sense yet was it often taken for a Name of God also according to his Universal Notion it being to Athenagoras the Divine Wisedom displaying it self through all things This excellently described by Aristides as the First Begotten Off-spring of the Original Deity or the Second Divine Hypostasis by which all things were made agreeably with the Christian Theology Page 486 487 Aphrodite Urania or the Heavenly Venus another name of God also according to his Universal Notion it being the same with that Love which Orpheus and other Philosophers in Aristotle made the First Original of all things Plato's Distinction of an Elder and a Younger Venus The Former the Daughter of Uranus without a Mother or the Heavenly Venus said to be Senior to Japhet and Saturn The Latter afterwards begotten from Jupiter and the Nymph Dione the Vulgar Venus Urania or the Heavenly Venus called by the Oriental Nations Mylitta that is the Mother of all things Temples in Pausanias Dedicated to this Heavenly Venus This described by Aeschylus Euripides and Ovid as the Supreme Deity and the Creator of all the Gods God Almighty also thus described as a Heavenly Venus or Love by Sev. Boetius To this Urania or Heavenly Venus another Venus in Pausanias near a kin called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Verticordia As Conversive of mens Minds upwards from Vnchast Love or Vnclean Lust. Page 488 489 Though Vulcan according to the Common Notion of him a Special God yet had he sometimes a more Universal Consideration Zeno in Laertius that the Supreme God is called Vulcan as Acting in the Artificiall Fire of Nature Thus the Soul of the World styled by the Aegyptians Phtha which as Iamblichus tells us was the same with the Greeks Hephaestus or Vulcan Page 489 490 Besides all which Names of the Supreme God Seneca informs us that he was sometimes called also Liber Pater because the Parent of all things sometimes Hercules because his Force is Unconquerable and sometimes Mercury as being Reason Number Order and Knowledge Page 490 But besides this Polyonymy of God according to his Universal Notion there were other Dii Speciales or Speciall Gods also amongst the Pagans which likewise were really but Several Names of One and the same Supreme Deity variè utentis sua Potestate as Seneca Writeth diversly using his Power in Particular Cases and in the several Parts of the World Thus Jupiter Neptune and Pluto mistaken by some Christians for a Trinity of Independent Gods though Three Civil Gods yet were they Really but One and the Same Natural and Philosophick God as Acting in those Three Parts of the World the Heaven the Sea the Earth and Hell Pluto in Plato's Cratylus a Name for That Part of Divine Providence which is exercised in the Government of Separate Souls after Death This Styled by Virgil the Stygian Jupiter But to others Pluto together with Ceres the Manifestation of the Deity in this whole Terrestrial Globe The Celestial and Terrestrial Jupiter but One God Zeus and Hades one and the same to Orpheus Euripides doubtfull whether God should be Invoked by the Name of Zeus or Hades Hermesianax the Colophonian Poet makes Pluto the First of those Many Names of God Synonymous with Zeus Page 490 491 Neptune also another Special God a name of the Supreme Deity as Acting in the Seas onely This affirmed by Xenocrates in Stobaeus Zeno in Laertius Balbus and Cotta in Cicero and also by Maximus Tyrius Page 492 The Statue of Jupiter with Three Eyes in Pausanias signifying that according to the Natural Theology it was One and the Same God Ruling in those Three Several Parts of the World the Heaven the Sea and the Earth that was called by Three Names Jupiter Neptune and Pluto Wherefore since Proserpina and Ceres are the same with Pluto and Salacia with Neptune Concluded that all these though Several Poetical and Political Gods yet were but One and the Same Natural and Philosophick God Page 492 493 Juno also another Special God a name of the Supreme Deity as Acting in the Aire Thus Xenocrates and Zeno. The Pagans in S. Austin that God in the Aether is called Jupiter in the Aire Juno So Minerva likewise when taken for a Special God a name of the Supreme God according to that Particular Consideration of him as Acting in the Higher Aether From whence S. Austin disputeth against the Pagans Maximus Tyrius of these and many other Gods of the Pagans that they were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine Names Page 493 494 Yet Many other Special Gods amongst the Pagans which also were really nothing but Divine Names or Names of God as variously exercising his Power or bestowing Several Gifts as in Corn and Fruit Ceres in Wine Bacchus in Medicine Aesculapius in Traffick Mercury in War Mars in Governing the Winds Aeolus c. Page 494 That not onely Philosophers did thus interpret the Many Poetical and Political Gods into One and the Same Natural God but the Poets themselves also sometimes openly broached this more Arcane Free and True Theology as Hermesianax amongst the Greeks and Valerius Soranus amongst the Latins Page 494 495 That S. Austin making a large Enumeration of the other Special Gods amongst the Pagans affirmeth of them Vniversally That according to the Sense of the Pagan Doctors they were but one Natural God and all Really the same with Jupiter Page 495 496 Apuleius in his Book De Deo Socratis either not rightly understood by that Learned and Industrius Philologer G.I. Vossius or else not sufficiently attended to His design there plainly to reduce the Pagans Civil Theology into a Conformity with the Natural and Philosophick which he doth as a Platonist by making the Dii Consentes of the Romans and their other Invisible Gods to be all of them Nothing but the Divine Ideas and so the Off-spring of one Highest God An occasion for this Phancy given by Plato
Aeolus in Arrianus seems to be taken for the Demons appointed by God Almighty to preside over the Winds Page 524 525 Lactantius his Reason why the Consentes and Select Gods vulgarly worshipped by the Romans could not be Single Demons or Angels Page 525 And from Aristotle's Observation against Zeno That according to Law or Civil Theology One God was chief for one thing and another for another Concluded that these Political Gods were not properly the Subservient Ministers of the Supreme and therefore could be nothing but several Names and Notions of One Natural God according to his Various Powers and Effects Page 525 526 And thus does Vossius himself afterwards confess That according to the Natural Theology all the Pagan Gods were but Several Denominations of one God Where notwithstanding this Learned and Industrious Philologer seems to take the Natural and Philosophick Theology for the Physiological he making the God thereof the Nature of things Whereas the Natural Theology was the True and Real and Philosophical opposed both to the Fictions of the Poets and the Institutes of Law-makers and Politicians As Varro affirmeth that in Cities those things were Worshipped and believed according to False Opinions which had no Nature nor Real Subsistence neither in the World nor without it The God of the Pagans not the Nature of things which could be the Numen of none but of Atheists but an Understanding Being the Great Mind or Soul of the whole World pervading all things Thus unquestionably true that the Many Poetical and Political Gods were but several Names or Notions of One Natural Real and True God Besides which there were other Inferiour Ministers of this Supreme God acknowledged to be the Instruments of his Providence and Religiously worshipped also A brief but full accompt of the Pagans Natural Theology set down by Prudentius Page 526 527 And when the more high-flown Pagans referred these Poetical and Political Gods to the Divine Idea's or Patterns of things in the Archetypal World which besides the Platonists the Egyptians in Celsus are said to have done making the Brute Animals worshipped by them but Symbols of the Eternal Idea's They hereby made these Gods to be but so many Partiall Considerations of One God neither as being All things or Containing in himself the Causes of all things as Julian himself declareth in his Sixth Oration Page 527 528 An Anacephalaeosis That much of the Pagan Polytheism was but the Polyonymy of One God he being worshipped under several Names First according to several General Notions of him as of Janus Genius Saturn Minerva Urania or the Heavenly Venus or Love and others before declared So also of Summanus according to S. Austin and Themis afterwards to be mentioned Page 528 529 And Secondly according to other more Particular Notions of him in their Special Gods as Acting in some Parts of the world onely or exercising some Particular Powers Page 529 530 And Lastly as Pervading All things and Being All things or the Cause of All things he was thereupon called by the Name of Every thing or Every thing by his Name The Pagans in S. Austin That their Ancestors were not so sottish as not to understand that those Things of Nature were but Divine Gifts and not Themselves Gods And the Pagans in Eusebius That the Invisible God the Cause of All things ought to be worshipped in his Visible Effects wherein he hath displayed himself Page 530 Though the Two former Kinds of these Gods onely called by Athanasius Poetical and Fictitious he opposing them to those of the Third sort that were Natural and Real things yet may these also be well called Poetical Fictitious and Phantastical Gods too because though themselves were Real things Existing in Nature yet was their Personation and Deification meer Fiction Fancy and Poetry And accordingly were they before called by Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer Figments of the Greeks Page 530 531 XXXIV Of those Pagans who supposed the Supreme God to be the Whole Animated World Hitherto shewed that even the most Refined of the Pagans agreed in these Two things First in Breaking and Crumbling the One Simple Deity and multiplying it into Many Gods or Parcelling it out into several Particular Notions according to its several Powers and Virtues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to these Pagans the same thing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then in Theologizing the whole World Personating and Deifying the Natures of Things Accidents and Inanimate Bodies They supposing God to Pervade all things and Himself to be in a manner All things Therefore every thing to the Religious Sacred and Divine and God to be Worshipped in All. Page 531 532 We shall now add that both those forementioned Principles of God's Pervading all things and his Being all things were carried on farther by those Pagan Theologers who had no higher Notion of the Supreme Deity then as the Soul of the World For First Whereas the more Refined Pagans supposed God to Pervade all things Unmixedly These Mingled and Confounded him with the whole World Some of them supposing him also to be a Subtile Body Page 532 533 Again Whereas the other more Sublimated Pagans affirmed God so to be All as nevertheless to be something also Above all These concluded him to be nothing Higher then the Animated World Page 533 And though they supposed that as well in this Mundane Animal as in other Animals there was something Principal and Hegemonical whether the Sun or Aether or Fire which therefore was Emphatically called God yet did they conceive the whole Matter thereof to be Animated and so to be All God Not barely as Matter but by reason of the Soul thereof Page 534 535 Now if the Whole World Animated be the Supreme God then must all the Parts and Members of the World be the Parts and Members of One God but not themselves therefore properly so Many Gods This affirmed by Origen as the True Sense of these Pagans against that unwary Assertion of Celsus That If the Whole were God then must the several Parts thereof needs be Gods Page 535 Wherefore though these Pagans Deified the Parts of the World and Natures of Things as well as the Powers of the Mundane Soul yet did not the Intelligent amongst them Worship them severally as so many True and Proper Gods but onely as the Parts and Members of one Great Animal or God or rather Worship the great Mundane Soul the Life of the whole World in them all This proved from S. Austin Page 536 537 The same plainly declared also by the Pagans in Athanasius That not the Divided Parts of the World were by them accounted so many several Gods but the Whole made up of them All One God which yet might be worshipped in its several Parts Page 537 The Pagans being thus divided as to their Opinions concerning the Natural and True Theology some of them Worshipped the World as the Body of God but others only as his Image or