For those Nicene Bishops themselves who did understand best of any the secrets of the Arian Faction and which way it should especially be oppugned aimed at nothing else in their Confession of Faith but only to establish that Equality of Essence Dignity and Eternity between them This does the word Homoousios it self declare it signifying rather Equality than SINGVLARITY of Essence as we have before showed And the like do those other Passages in the same Decree as That there was no time when the Son was not and That he was not made of nothing Nor of a different Hypostasis or Essence Thus does Petavius clearly confess that this Same Singularity of Numerical Essence was not asserted by the Nicene Council nor the most Ancient Fathers but only an Equality or Sameness of Generical Essence or else that the Father and Son agreed only in One Common Essence or Substance of the Godhead that is the Eternal and Vncreated Nature But the truth of this will more fully appear from these following Particulars First because these Orthodox Anti-Arian Fathers did all of zealously condemn Sabellianism the Doctrine whereof is no other than this that there was but one Hypostasis or Singular Individual Essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and consequently that they were indeed but Three several Names or Notions or Modes of one and the self same thing From whence such Absurdities as these would follow That the Father's Begetting the Son was nothing but one Name Notion or Mode of the Deities Begetting another or else the same Deity under one Notion Begetting it self under another Notion And when again the Son or Word and not the Father is said to have been Incarnated and to have suffered death for us upon the Cross that it was nothing but a meer Logical Notion or Mode of the Deity that was Incarnate and Suffered or else the whole Deity under one particular Notion or Mode only But should it be averred notwithanding that this Trinity which we now speak of was not a Trinity of meer Names and Notions as that of the Sabellians but of distinct Hypostases or Persons then must it needs follow since every Singular Essence is an Hypostasis according to the sence of the Ancient Fathers that there was not a Trinity only but a Quaternity of Hypostases in the Deity Which is a thing that none of those Fathers ever dream'd of Again the word Homoousios as was before intimated by Petavius was never used by Greek writers otherwise than to signifie the Agreement of things Numerically differing from one another in some Common Nature or Vniversal Essence or their having a Generical Vnity or Identity of which sundry Instances might be given Nor indeed is it likely that the Greek Tongue should have any name for that which neither is a thing in Nature nor falls under Humane Conception viz. Several Things having one and the same Singular Essence And accordingly St. Basil interprets the force of this word thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it plainly takes away the Sameness of Hypostasis that is of Singular Numerical Essence this being that which the ancient Fathers meant by the word Hypostasis For the same thing is not Homoousios Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with it self but always One thing with Another Wherefore as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used by Plotinus as Synonymous in these words concerning the Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is full of Divine things by reason of its being Cognate or Congenerous and Homoousious with them so doth Athanasius in like manner use them when he affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Branches are Homoousious Co-essential or Con-substantial and Con-generous with the Vine or with the Root thereof Besides which the same Father uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indifferently for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sundry places None of which words can be thought to signifie an Identity of Singular Essence but only of Generical or Specifical And thus was the word Homoousios plainly used by the Council of Chalcedon they affirming that our Saviour Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with the Father as to his Divinity but Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with us Men as to his Humanity Where it cannot reasonably be suspected that one and the same word should be taken in two different sences in the same Sentence so as in the first place to signifie a Numerical Identity but in the second a Generical or Specifical only But Lastly which is yet more Athanasius himself speaketh in like manner of our Saviour Christ's being Homoousious with us men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Son be Coessential or Consubstantial or of the same Essence or Substance with us Men he having the very same Nature with us then let him be in this respect a stranger to the Essence or Substance of the Father even as the Vine is to the Essence of the Husbandman And again a little after in the same Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or did Dionysius think you when he affirmed the Word not to be Proper to the Essence of the Father suppose him therefore to be Coessential or Consubstantial with us Men From all which it is unquestionably evident that Athanasius did not by the word Homoousios understand That which hath the Same Singular and Numerical Essence with another but the same Common Generical or Specifical only and consequently that he conceived the Son to be Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father after that manner Furthermore the true meaning of the Nicene Fathers may more fully and thoroughly be perceived by considering what that Doctrine of Arius was which they Opposed and Condemned Now Arius maintained the Son or Word to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Creature Made in Time and Mutable or Defectible and for that reason as Athanasius tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a different Essence or Substance from the Father That which is Created being supposed to differ Essentially or Substantially from that which is Vncreated Wherefore the Nicene Fathers in way of Opposition to this Doctrine of Arius determined that the Son or Word was not thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father that is not a Creature but God or agreeing with the Father in that Common Nature or Essence of the Godhead So that this is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence or Substance of the ancient Fathers which is said to be the Same in all the Three Hypostases of the Trinity as they are called God not a Singular Existent Essence but the Common General or Vniversal Essence of the Godhead or of the Vncreated Nature called by S. Hilary Natura Vna non Vnitate Personae sed Generis One Nature not by Vnity of Person
and since too have done We see here that Plato expresly asserts a Substance distinct from Body which sometimes he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incorporeal Substance and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intelligible Substance in opposition to the other which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sensible And it is plain to any one that hath had the least acquaintance with Plato's Philosophy that the whole Scope and Drift of it is to raise up mens Minds from Sense to a belief of Incorporeal Things as the most Excellent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he writes in another place For Incorporeal Things which are the greatest and most excellent things of all are saith he discoverable by Reason only and nothing else And his Subterraneous Cave so famously known and so elegantly described by him where he supposes men tied with their backs towards the Light placed at a great distance from them so that they could not turn about their Heads to it neither and therefore could see nothing but the shadows of certain Substances behind them projected from it which Shadows they concluded to be the only Substances and Realities and when they heard the Sounds made by those Bodies that were betwixt the Light and them or their reverberated Eccho's they imputed them to those shadows which they saw I say all this is a Description of the State of those Men who tak◠Body to be the only Real and Substantial thing in the World and to do all that is done in it and therefore often impute Sense Reason and Understanding to nothing but Blood and Brains in us XX. I might also shew in the next place how Aristotle did not at all dissent from Plato herein he plainly asserting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Substance beside Sensibles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Substance separable and also actually separated from Sensibles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Immoveable Nature or Essence subject to no Generation or Corruption adding that the Deity was to be sought for here Nay such a Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as hath no Magnitude at all but is Impartible and Indivisible He also blaming Zeno not the Stoick who was Junior to Aristotle but an ancienter Philosopher of that Name for making God to be a Body in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zeno implicitly affirms God to be a Body whether he mean him to be the whole Corporeal Vniverse or some particular Body for if God were Incorporeal how could he be Spherical nor could he then either Move or Rest being not properly in any Place but if God be a Body then nothing hinders but that he may be moved From which and other Places of Aristotle it is plain enough also that he did suppose Incorporeal Substance to be Unextended and as such not to have Relation to any Place But this is a thing to be disputed afterwards Indeed some learned men conceive Aristotle to have reprehended Zeno without Cause and that Zeno made God to be a Sphear or Spherical in no other sence than Parmenides did in that known Verse of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherein he is understood to describe the Divine Eternity However it plainly appears from hence that according to Aristotle's sence God was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Incorporeal Substance distinct from the World XXI Now this Doctrine which Plato especially was famous for asserting that there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incorporeal Substance and that the Souls of Men were such but principally the Deity Epicurus taking notice of it endeavoured with all his might to confute it arguing sometimes after this manner There can be no Incorporeal God as Plato maintained not only because no man can frame a Conception of an Incorporeal Substance but also because whatsoever is Incorporeal must needs want Sense and Prudence and Pleasure all which things are included in the Notion of God and therefore an Incorporeal Deity is a Contradiction And concerning the Soul of Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They who say that the Soul is Incorporeal in any other sence than as that word may be used to signifie a Subtil Body talk Vainly and Foolishly for then it could neither be able to Do nor Suffer any thing It could not Act upon any other thing because it could Touch nothing neither could it Suffer from any thing because it could not be Touch'd by any thing but it would be just like to Vacuum or Empty Space which can neither Do nor Suffer any thing but only yield Bodies a Passage through it From whence it is further evident that this Opinion was professedly maintained by some Philosophers before Epicurus his time XXII But Plato and Aristotle were not the first Inventors of it For it is certain that all those Philosophers who held the Immortality of the Humane Soul and a God distinct from this visible World and so properly the Creator of it and all its parts did really assert Incorporeal Substance For that a Corporeal Soul cannot be in its own Nature Immortal and Incorruptible is plain to every one's Understanding because of its parts being separable from one another and whosoever denies God to be Incorporeal if he make him any thing at all he must needs make him to be either the whole Corporeal World or else a part of it Wherefore if God be neither of these he must then be an Incorporeal Substance Now Plato was not the first who asserted these two things but they were both maintained by many Philosophers before him Pherecydes Syrus and Thales were two of the most ancient Philosophers among the Greeks and it is said of the former of them that by his Lectures and Disputes concerning the Immortality of the Soul he first drew off Pythagoras from another Course of life to the study of Philosophy Pherecydes Syrus saith Cicero Primus dixit animos hominum esse sempiternos And Thales in an Epistle directed to him congratulates his being the First that had designed to write to the Greeks concerning Divine Things which Thales also who was the Head of the Ionick Succession of Philosophers as Pythagoras of the Italick is joyned with Pythagoras and Plato by the Writer De Placitis Philosophorum after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All these determined the Soul to be Incorporeal making it to be Naturally Self-moving or Self-active and an Intelligible Substance that is not Sensible Now he that determines the Soul to be Incorporeal must needs hold the Deity to be Incorporeal much more Aquam dixit Thales esse initium rerum saith Cicero Deum autem eam Mentem quae ex aqua cuncta fingeret Thales said that Water was the first Principle of all Corporeal things but that God was that Mind which formed all things out of Water For Thales was a Phoenician by Extraction and accordingly seemed to have received his two Principles from thence Water and the Divine Spirit moving upon the Waters The First whereof is thus
manner forasmuch as they made the Ocean and Tethys to have been the Original of Generation and for this cause the Oath of the Gods is said to be by water called by the Poets Styx as being that from which they all derived their Original For an Oath ought to be by that which is most Honourable and that which is most Ancient is most Honourable In which words it is very probable that Aristotle aimed at Plato however it is certain that Plato in his Theaetetus affirms this Atheistick Doctrine to have been very ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all things were the off-spring of Flux and Motion that is that all things were Made and Generated out of Matter and that he chargeth Homer with it in deriving the Original of the Gods themselves in like manner from the Ocean or Floating Matter in this Verse of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father of all Gods the Ocean is Tethys their Mother Wherefore these indeed seem to have been the ancientest of all Atheists who though they acknowledged certain Beings superiour to men which they called by the Name of Gods did notwithstanding really deny a God according to the true Notion of him deriving the Original of all things whatsoever in the Universe from the Ocean that is Fluid Matter or which is all one from Night and Chaos and supposing all their Gods to have been Made and Generated and consequently to be Mortal and Corruptible Of which Atheistick Theology Aristophanes gives us the description in his Aves after this manner That at first was Nothing but Night and Chaos which laying an Egg from thence was produced Love that mingling again with Chaos begot Heaven and Earth and Animals and all the Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First all was Chaos one confused Heap Darkness enwrapt the disagreeing Deep In a mixt croud the Jumbled Elements were Nor Earth nor Air nor Heaven did appear Till on this horrid vast Abyss of things Teeming Night spreading o'er her cole-black Wings Laid the first Egg whence after times due course Issu'd forth Love the World 's Prolifick Source Glistering with golden Wings which fluttering o'er Dark Chaos gendred all the numerous store Of Animals and Gods c. And whereas the Poet there makes the Birds to have been begotten between Love and Chaos before all the Gods though one might think this to have been done Jocularly by him merely to humour his Plot yet Salmasius conceives and not without some reason that it was really a piece of the old Atheistick Cabala which therefore seems to have run thus That Chaos or Matter confusedly moved being the first Original of all Things did from thence rise up gradually from lesser to greater Perfection First Inanimate things as the Elements Heaven Earth and Seas then Brute-animals afterwards Men and last of all the Gods As if not only the Substance of Matter and those Inanimate Bodies of the Elements Fire Water Air and Earth were as Aristotle somewhere speaks according to the sence of those Atheistick Theologers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First in order of Nature before God as being themselves also Gods but also Brute-animals at least if not men too And this is the Atheistick Creation of the World Gods and all out of Sensless and Stupid Matter or Dark Chaos as the only Original Numen the perfectly Inverted order of the Universe XVIII But though this Hypothesis be purely Atheistical that makes Love which is supposed to be the Original Deity to have it self sprung at first from an Egg of the Night and consequently that all Deity was the Creature or Off-spring of Matter and Chaos or Dark Fortuitous Nature yet Aristotle somewhere conceives that not only Parmenides but also Hesiod and some others who did in like manner make Love the Supreme Deity and derive all things from Love and Chaos were to be exempted out of the number of those Atheistick Materialists before described forasmuch as they seemed to understand by Love an Active Principle and Cause of Motion in the Universe which therefore could not spring from an Egg of the Night nor be the Creature of Matter but must needs be something Independent on it and in order of Nature before it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One would suspect that Hesiod and if there be any other who made Love or Desire a Principle of things in the Universe aimed at this very thing namely the setling of another Active Principle besides Matter For Parmenides describing the Generation of the Universe makes Love to be the Senior of all the Gods and Hesiod after he had mentioned Chaos introduced Love as the Supreme Deity As intimating herein that besides Matter there ought to be another Cause or Principle that should be the Original of Motion and Activity and also hold and conjoyn all things together But how these two Principles are to be ordered and which of them was to be placed first whether Love or Chaos may be judged of afterwards In which latter words Aristotle seems to intimate that Love as taken for an Active Principle was not to be supposed to spring from Chaos but rather to be in order of Nature before it and therefore by this Love of theirs must needs be meant the Deity And indeed Simmias Rhodius in his Wings a Hymn made in Honour of this Love that is Senior to all the Gods and a Principle in the Universe tells us plainly that it is not Cupid Venuses soft and effeminate Son but another kind of Love 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I 'm not that Wanton Boy The Sea-froath Goddess's only Joy Pure Heavenly Love I hight and my Soft Magick Charms not Iron Bands fast tye Heaven Earth and Seas The Gods themselves do readily Stoop to my Laws The whole World daunces to my Harmony Moreover this cannot be that Love neither which is described in Plato's Symposium as some learned men have conceived that was begotten between Penia and Porus this being not a Divine but Demoniack thing as the Philosopher there declares no God but a Daemon only or of a Middle Nature For it is nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Love of Pulchritude as such which though rightly used may perhaps Wing and Inspire the Mind to Noble and Generous Attempts and beget a scornful disdeign in it of Mean Dirty and Sordid things yet it is capable of being abused also and then it will strike downward into Brutishness and Sensuality But at best it is an Affection belonging only to Imperfect and Parturient Beings and therefore could
Materiarian Theists acknowledged God to be a Perfectly-understanding Being and Such as had also Power over the Whole Matter of the Universe which was utterly unable to move it self or to produce any thing without him And all of them except the Anaxagoreans concluded that He was the Creator of all the Forms of Inanimate Bodies and of the Souls of Animals However it was Universally agreed upon amongst them that he was at least The Orderer and Disposer of all and that therefore he might upon that account well be called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Maker or Framer of the World Notwithstanding which so long as they Maintained Matter to exist Independently upon God and sometimes also to be Refractory and Contumacious to him and by that means to be the Cause of Evli contrary to the Divine Will it is plain that they could not acknowledge the Divine Omnipotence according to the Full and Proper sence of it Which may also further appear from these Queries of Seneca concerning God Quantum Deus possit Materiam ipse sibi Formet an Datâ utatur Deus quicquid Vult efficiat An in multis rebus illuni Tractanda destituant à Magno Artifice Pravè formentur multa non quia cessat Ars sed quia id in quo exercetur saepe Inobsequens Arti est How far Gods Power does extend Whether he make his own Matter or only use that which is offered him Whether he can do whatsoever he will Or the Materials in many things Frustrate and Disappoint him and by that means things come to be Ill-framed by this great Artificer not because his Art fails him but because that which it is exercised upon proves Stubborn and Contumacious Wherefore I think we may well conclude that those Materiarian Theists had not a Right and Genuine Idea of God Nevertheless it does not therefore follow that they must needs be concluded Absolute Atheists for there may be a Latitude allowed in Theism and though in a strict and proper sence they be only Theists who acknowledge One God perfectly Omnipotent the Sole Original of of all things and as well the Cause of Matter as of any thing else yet it seems reasonable that such Consideration should be had of the Infirmity of Humane Understandings as to extend the Word further that it may comprehend within it those also who assert One Intellectual Principle Self-existent from Eternity the Framer and Governor of the whole World though not the Creator of the Matter and that none should be condemned for Absolute Atheists merely because they hold Eternal Vncreated Matter unless they also deny an Eternal Vnmade Mind ruling over the Matter and so make Sensless Matter the Sole Original of all things And this is certainly most agreeable to common apprehensions for Democritus and Epicurus would never have been condemned for Atheists merely for asserting Eternal Self-existent Atoms no more than Anaxagoras and Archelaus were who maintained the same thing had they not also denied that other Principle of theirs a Perfect Mind and concluded that the World was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Without the ordering and disposal of any Vnderstanding Being that had all Happiness with Incorruptibility VIII The True and Proper Idea of God in its Most Contracted Form is this A Being Absolutely Perfect For this is that alone to which Necessary Existence is Essential and of which it is Demonstrable Now as Absolute Perfection includes in it all that belongs to the Deity so does it not only comprehend besides Necessary Existence Perfect Knowledge or Understanding but also Omni-causality and Omnipotence in the full extent of it otherwise called Infinite Power God is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Animans quo nihil in omni Natura praestantius as the Materiarian Theists describ'd him The Best Living Being nor as Zeno Eleates called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Most Powerful of all things but he is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Absolutely Omnipotent and Infinitely Powerful and therefore neither Matter nor any thing else can exist of it self Independently upon God but he is the Sole Principle and Source from which all things are derived But because this Infinite Power is a thing which the Atheists quarrel much withal as if it were altogether Vnintelligible and therefore Impossible we shall here briefly declare the Sence of it and render it as we think easily Intelligible or Conceivable in these Two following steps First that by Infinite Power is meant nothing else but Perfect Power or else as Simplicius calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Whole and Entire Power such as hath no Allay and Mixture of Impotency nor any Defect of Power mingled with it And then again that this Perfect Power which is also the same with Infinite is really nothing else but a Power of Producing and Doing all whatsoever is Conceivable and which does not imply a Contradiction for Conception is the Only Measure of Power and its Extent as shall be shewed more fully in due place Now here we think fit to observe that the Pagan Theists did themselves also vulgarly acknowledge Omnipotence as an Attribute of the Deity which might be proved from sundry Passages of their Writings Homer Od. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deus aliud post aliud Jupiter Bonúmque Malúmque dat Potest enim Omnia And again Od. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deus autem hoc dabit illud omittet Quodcunque ei libitum fuerit Potest enim Omnia To this Purpose also before Homer Linus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And after him Callimachus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are possible for God to do and nothing transcends his Power Thus also amongst the Latin Poets Virgil Aen. the First Sed Pater Omnipotens Speluncis abdidit Atris Again Aen. the Second At Pater Anchises oculos ad sydera laetus Extulit Coelo palmas cum Voce tetendit Jupiter Omnipotens precibus si flecteris ullis And Aen. the Fourth Talibus orantem dictis arásque tenentem Audiit Omnipotens Ovid in like manner Metamorph. 1. Tum Pater Omnipotens misso persregit Olympum Fulmine excussit subjectum Pelion Ossae And to cite no more Agatho an ancient Greek Poet is commended by Aristotle for affirming nothing to be exempted from the Power of God but only this that he cannot make That not to have been which hath been that is do what implies a Contradiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc namque duntaxat negatum etiam Deo est Quae facta sunt Infecta posse reddere Lastly that the Atheists themselves under Paganism look'd upon Omnitence and Infinite Power as an Essential Attribute of the Deity appears plainly from Lucretius when he tells us that Epicurus in order to the Taking away of Religion set himself
of Darkness Another God makes a World out of it c. And again afterwards he writes further to the same purpose Discat ergò Faustus Monarchiae Opinionem non ex Gentibus nos habere sed Gentes non usque adeò ad Falsos Deos esse dilapsas ut Opinionem amitterent Vnius Veri Dei ex quo est Omnis qualiscunque Natura Let Faustus therefore know that We Christians have not derived the Opinion of Monarchy from the Pagans but that the Pagans have not so far degenerated sinking down into the Worship of false Gods as to have lost the Opinion of One True God from whom is all Whatsoever Nature XIV It follows from what we have declared that the Pagan Polytheism or Multiplicity of Gods is not to be understood in the sence before expressed of Many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many Vnproduced and Self-existent Deities but according to some other Notion or Equivocation of the word Gods For God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of those words that hath been used in many different sences the Atheists themselves acknowledging a God and Gods according to some Private Sences of their own which yet they do not all agree in neither and Theists not always having the same Notion of that Word Forasmuch as Angels in Scripture are called Gods in one sence that is as Vnderstanding Beings Superiour to men Immortal Holy and Happy and the word is again sometimes carried down lower to Princes and Magistrates and not only so but also to Good men as such when they are said to be Made Partakers of the Divine Nature And thus that learned Philosopher and Christian Boethius Omnis Beatus Deus sed Natura quidem Vnus Participatione verò nihil prohibet esse quamplurimos every Good and Happy man is a God and though there be only One God by Nature yet nothing hinders but that there may be Many by Participation But then again all Men and Angels are alike denied to be Gods in other Respects and particularly as to Religious Worship Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou Serve Now this is that which seems to be Essentially included in the Pagan Notion of the word God or Gods when taken in general namely a Respect to Religious Worship Wherefore a God in general according to the sence of the Pagan Theists may be thus defined An Vnderstanding Being superiour to Men not originally derived from Sensless Matter and look'd upon as an Object for mens Religious Worship But this general Notion of the word God is again restrained and limited by Differences in the Division of it For such a God as this may be either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ingenerate or Vnproduced and consequently Self-existent or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Generated or Produced and Dependent on some Higher Being as its Cause In the former sence the Intelligent Pagans as we have declared acknowledged only One God who was therefore called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to that of Thales in Laertius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is the oldest of all things because he is Vnmade or Vnproduced and the only thing that is so but in the latter they admitted of Many Gods Many Vnderstanding Beings which though Generated or Produced yet were Superiour to Men and look'd upon as Objects for their Religious Worship And thus the Pagan Theists were both Polytheists and Monotheists in different Sences they acknowledged both Many Gods and One God that is Many Inferiour Deities subordinate to One Supreme Thus Onatus the Pythagorean in Stobaeus declares himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemeth to me that there is not only One God but that there is One the Greatest and Highest God that governeth the whole World and that there are Many other Gods besides him differing as to power that One God reigning over them all who surmounts them all in Power Greatness and Vertue This is that God who conteins and comprehends the whole World but the other Gods are those who together with the Revolution of the Vniverse orderly follow that First and Intelligible God Where it is evident that Onatus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Many Gods were only the Heavenly Bodies or Animated Stars And partly from those words cited but chiefly others which follow after in the same place that will be produced elsewhere it plainly appears that in Onatus his time there were some who acknowledged One Only God denying all those other Gods then commonly Worshipped And indeed Anaxagoras seems to have been such a one forasmuch as asserting One Perfect Mind Ruling over all which is the True Deity he effectually degraded all those other Pagan Gods the Sun Moon and Stars from their Godships by making the Sun nothing but a Globe of Fire and the Moon Earth and Stones and the like of the other Stars and Planets And some such there were also amongst the Ancient Egyptians as shall be declared in due place Moreover Proclus upon Plato's Timaeus tells us that there hath been always less doubt and controversie in the World concerning the One God than concerning the Many Gods Wherefore Onatus here declares his own sence as to this particular viz. that besides the One Supreme God there were also Many other Inferiour Deities that is Vnderstanding Beings that ought to be Religiously Worshipped But because it is not impossible but that there might be imagin'd One Supreme Deity though there were many other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnmade made and Self-existent Gods besides as Plutarch supposed before One Supreme God together with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Irrational Soul or Daemon Vnmade Inferiour in power to it therefore we add in the next place that the more Intelligent Pagans did not only assert One God that was Supreme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most Powerful of all the Gods but also who being Omnipotent was the Principle and Cause of all the rest and therefore the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only Vnproduced and Self-existent Deity Maximus Tyrius affirms this to have been the general sence of all the Pagans that there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One God the King and Father of all and many Gods the Sons of God reigning together with God Neither did the Poets imply any thing less when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was so often called by the Greeks and Jupiter by the Latins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hominum Pater atque Deorum or Hominum Satórque Deorum and the like And indeed the Theogonia of the ancient Pagans before mention'd was commonly thus declared by them universally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gods were Generated or as Herodotus expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that every one of the Gods was Generated or Produced which yet is not so to be understood as if they had therefore supposed no God at all Vnmade or Self-exâ—stent which is Absolute Atheism but that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the
as also that there was no Theogonia nor Temporary Production of the Inferiour Gods from these Verses of his according to Grotius his Correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nempe Dî semper fuerunt atque nunquam intercident Haec quae dico semper nobis rebus in iisdem se exhibent Extitisse sed Deorum Primum perhibetur Chaos Quînam verò nam de nihilo nîl pote primum existere Ergo nec Primum profecto quicquam nec fuit Alterum Sed quae nunc sic appellantur alia fient postmodum Where though he acknowledges this to have been the General Tradition of the ancient Theists That Chaos was before the Gods and that the Inferior Mundane Gods had a Temporary Generation or Production with the World yet notwithstanding does he conclude against it from this Ground of Reason because Nothing could procede from Nothing and therefore both the Gods and indeed whatsoever else is Substantial in the World was from Eternity Unmade only the Fashion of things having been altered Moreover Diodorus Siculus affirms the Chaldeans likewise to have asserted this Dogma of the Worlds Eternity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chaldeans affirm the Nature of the World to be Eternal and that it was neither Generated from any Beginning nor will ever admit Corruption Who that they were not Atheists for all that no more than Aristotle appears from those following words of that Historiographer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They believe also that the Order and Disposition of the World is by a certain Divine Providence and that every One of those things which come to pass in the Heavens happens not by chance but by a certain determinate and firmly ratified Judgment of the Gods However it is a thing known to all that the Generality of the later Platonists stiffly adhered to Aristotle in this neither did they onely assert the Corporeal World with all the Inferior Mundane Gods in it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ingenerate and to have existed from Eternity but also maintained the same concerning the Souls of Men and all other Animals They concluding that no Souls were Younger than Body or the World and because they would not seem to depart from their Master Plato therefore did they endeavour violently to force this same sence upon Plato's words also Notwithstanding which concerning these Latter Platonists it is here observable that though they thus asserted the World and all Inferior Gods and Souls to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to that stricter sence of the Word declared that is to have had no Temporary Generation or Beginning but to have Existed from Eternity yet by no means did they therefore conceive them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-originated and Self-existing but concluded them to have been all derived from one sole Self-existent Deity as their Cause which therefore though not in order of Time yet of Nature was before them To this purpose Plotinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind or God was before the World not as if it existed before it in Time but because the World proceeded from it and that was in order of Nature First as the cause thereof and its Archetype or Paradigm the World also always subsisting by it and from it And again elsewhere to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things which are said to have been made or Generated were not so Made as that they ever had a Beginning of their Existence but yet they were Made and will be always Made in another sence nor will they ever be destroyed otherwise than as being dissolved into those Simple Principles out of which some of them were compounded Where though the World be said never to have been Made as to a Temporary beginning yet in another sence is it said to be always Made as depending upon God perpetually as the Emanative Cause thereof Agreeably whereunto the Manner of the Worlds Production from God is thus declared by that Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They do not rightly who Corrupt and Generate the World for they will not understand what Manner of Making or Production the World had to wit by way of Effulgency or Eradiation from the Deity From whence it follows that the World must needs have been so long as there was a God as the Light was coeve with the Sun So likewise Proclus concludes that the World was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always Generated or Eradiated from God and therefore must needs be Eternal God being so Wherefore these Latter Platonists supposed the same thing concerning the Corporeal World and the Lower Mundane Gods which their Master Plato did concerning his Higher Eternal Gods that though they had no Temporary Production yet they all depended no less upon one Supreme Deity than if they had been made out of Nothing by Him From whence it is manifest that none of these Philosophers apprehended any Repugnancy at all betwixt these Two Things Existence from Eternity and Being Caused or produced by Another Nor can we make any great Doubt but that if the Latter Platonists had been fully convinced of any Contradictious Inconsistency here they would readily have disclaimed that their so beloved Hypothesis of the Worlds Eternity it being so far from Truth what some have supposed that the Assertors of the Worlds Eternity were all Atheists that these Latter Platonists were led into this Opinion no otherwise than from the sole Consideration of the Deity to wit its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 its Essential Goodness and Generative Power or Emanative Fecundity as Proclus plainly declares upon the Timaeus Now though Aristotle were not Acted with any such Divine Enthusiasm as these Platonists seem to have been yet did he notwithstanding after his sober Manner really maintain the same thing That though the World and Inferior Mundane Gods had no Temporary Generation yet were they nevertheless all Produced from One Supreme Deity as their Cause Thus Simplicius represents that Philosopher's Sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristotle would not have the World to have been made so as to have had a Beginning but yet nevertheless to have been produced from God after some other manner And again afterward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristotle though making God the Cause of the Heaven and its Eternal Motion yet concludes it notwithstanding to have been Ingenerate or Vnmade that is without Beginning However we think sit here to observe that though Aristotle do for the most part express a great deal of Zeal and Confidence for that Opinion of the Worlds Eternity yet doth he sometimes for all that seem to flag a little and speak more Languidly and Sceptically about it as for Example in his Book De Partibus Animalium where he treats concerning an Artificial Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is more likely that the Heaven was
made by such a Cause as this if it were Made and that it is maintained by such a Cause than that Mortal Animals should be so which yet is a thing more generally acknowledged Now it was before declared that Aristotle's Artificial Nature was nothing but the mere Executioner or Opificer of a Perfect Mind that is of the Deity which Two therefore he sometimes joyns together in the Cosmopoeia affirming that Mind and Nature that is God and Nature were the Cause of this Universe And now we see plainly that though there was a Real Controversie amongst the Pagan Theologers especially from Aristotle's time downward concerning the Cosmogonia and Theogonia according to the Stricter notion of those words the Temporary Generation or Production of the World and Inferior Gods or whether they had any Beginning or no yet was there no Controversie at all concerning the Self-existency of them but it was Universally agreed upon amongst them That the World and the Inferior Gods however supposed by some to have existed from Eternity yet were nevertheless all derived from one Sole Self-existent Deity as their Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being either Eradiated or Produced from God Wherefore it is observable that these Pagan Theists who asserted the Worlds Eternity did themselves distinguish concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orium Natum Factum as that which was Equivocal and though in one sence of it they denied that the World and Inferior Gods were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet notwithstanding did they in another sence clearly affirm the same For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they strictly and properly taken is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which in respect of time passed out of Non-existence into Being or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which being not before afterwards was Nevertheless they acknowledge that in a larger sence this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken also for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which doth any way depend upon a Superior Being as its Cause And there must needs be the same Equivocation in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that this in like manner may be taken also either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which is Ingenerate in respect of Time as having no Temporary Beginning or else for that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ingenerate or Vnproduced from any Cause in which latter sence that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vnmade is of equal force and extent with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is Self-subsistent or Selforiginated and accordingly it was used by those Pagan Theists who concluded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. That Matter was Vnmade that is not only existed from Eternity without Beginning but also was Self-existent and Independent upon any Superior Cause Now as to the Former of these two sences of those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Generality of the ancient Pagans and together with them Plato affirmed the World and all the Inferior Gods to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been Made in Time or to have had a Beginning for whatever the Latter Platonists pretend this was undoubtedly Plato's Notion of that word and no other when he concluded the World to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as himself expresly opposes it to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is Eternal But on the contrary Aristotle and the Later Platonists determined the World and all the Inferior Gods to be in this sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as had no Temporary Beginning but were from Eternity However according to the later Sence of those words all the Pagan Theologers agreed together that the World and all the Inferior Gods whether having a Beginning or Existing from Eternity were notwithstanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 produced or derived from a Superior Cause and that thus there was only One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Vnproduced and Self-existent Deity who is said by them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superior to a Cause and Older than any Cause he being the Cause of all things besides himself Thus Crantor and his Followers in Proclus zealous Assertors of the Worlds Eternity determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the World with all the Inferior Mundane Gods in it notwithstanding their Being from Eternity might be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is orti or made as being produced from another Cause and not Self-originated or Self-existing In like manner Proclus himself that grand Champion for the Worlds Eternity plainly acknowledged notwithstanding the Generation of the Gods and World in this sence as being produced from a Superior Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We call it the Generations of the Gods meaning thereby not any Temporary Production of them but their Ineffable Procession from a Superior First Cause Thus also Salustius in his Book de Diis Mundo where he contends the World to have been from Eternity or without Beginning yet concludes both it and the other Inferiour Gods to have been made by One Supreme Deity who is called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First God For saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God or the First Cause having the greatest power or being Omnipotent ought therefore to make not only Men and other Animals but also Gods and Demons And accordingly this is the Title of his 13. Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How Eternal things may be said to be Made or Generated It is true indeed as we have often declared that some of the Pagan Theists asserted God not to be the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only Vnmade and Self-existent Being but that Matter also was such nevertheless this Opinion was not so generally received amongst them as is commonly supposed and though some of the ancient Fathers confidently impute it to Plato yet there seems to be no sufficient ground for their so doing and Porphyrius Jamblychus Proclus and other Platonists do not only professedly oppose the same as false but also as that which was dissonant from Plato's Principles Wherefore according to that larger Notion of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as taken synonymously with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there were Very many of the Pagan Theologers who agreed with Christians in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God is the only Ingenerate or Vnmade Being and that his very Essence is Ingenerability or Innascibility all other things even Matter it self being made by him But all the rest of them only a few Ditheists excepted though they supposed Matter to be Self-existent yet did they conclude that there was only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely One Vnmade or Vnproduced God and that all their other Gods were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in One sence or other if not as Made in Time yet at least as Produced from a Superiour Cause Nothing now remaineth but onely that we shew how
are often distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they being put for an Inferiour rank of Beings below the Gods vulgarly called Demons which word in a large sence comprehends also Heroes under it For though these Daemons be sometimes called Gods too yet were they rather accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demi-gods than Gods And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods and Demons are frequently joyned together as things distinct from one another which Notion of the word Plato refers to when he concludes Love not to be a God but a Demon only But of these Demons we are to speak more afterwards Furthermore the Pagan Writers frequently understand the Supreme God by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the word is used Substantively As for example in this of Epicharmus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Res nulla est Deum quae lateat scire quod te convenit Ipse est noster Introspector tum Deus nil non potest So likewise in this of Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is far removed both from Pleasure and Grief And Plotinus calls the Supreme God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Divinity that is in the Vniverse But because the Instances hereof are also innumerable we shall decline the mentioning of any more and instead of them only set down the Judgment of that diligent and impartial Observer of the Force of words Henricus Stephanus concerning it Redditur etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saepe Deus sed ita tamen ut intelligendum sit non de quolibet Deo ab ipsis etiam profanis Scriptoribus dici verùm de eo quem intelligerent cùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicebant quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad differentiam eorum qui multi appellatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 includebantur summum videlicet Supremúmque Numen quasi dicas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut loquitur de Jove Homerus Lastly as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so likewise was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Greeks for the Supreme Numen or that Divinity which governs the whole World Thus whereas it was commonly said according to Herodotus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God was envious the meaning whereof was that he did not commonly suffer any great Humane Prosperity to continue long without some check or counterbuff the same Proverbial speech is expressed in Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in this sence the word seems to be used in Isocrates ad Demonicum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worship God always but especially with the City in her Publick Sacrifices And doubtless it was thus taken by Epictetus in this Passage of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is but one way to Tranquillity of Mind and Happiness Let this therefore be always ready at hand with thee both when thou wakest early in the morning and all the day long and when thou goest late to sleep to account no external things thine own but to commit all these to God and Fortune And there is a very remarkable Passage in Demosthenes observed by Budeus that must not be here omitted in which we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly for the Inferiour or Minor Gods only and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Supreme God both together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gods and the Deity will know or take notice of him that gives not a righteous sentence that is both the Inferior Gods and the Supreme God himself Wherefore we see that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to its Grammatical Form is not a Diminitive as some have conceived but an Adjective Substantiv'd as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Nevertheless in Pagan Writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence it is derived is often used for an Inferionr Rank of Beings below the Gods though sometimes called Gods too and such was Socrates his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so commonly known But the Grammar of this Word and its proper Signification in Pagan Writers cannot better be manifested than by citing that Passage of Socrates his own in his Apology as written by Plato who though generally supposed to have had a Daemon was notwithstanding by Melitus accused of Atheism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Is there any one O Melitus who acknowledging that there are Humane things can yet deny that there are any Men or confessing that there are Equine things can nevertheless deny that there are any Horses If this cannot be then no man who acknowledges Demonial things can deny Demons Wherefore I being confessed to assert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs be granted to hold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also Now do we not all think that Demons are either Gods or at least Sons of the Gods Wherefore for any one to conceive that there are Daemons and yet no Gods is altogether as absurd as if one should think that there are Mules but yet neither Horses nor Asses However in the New Testament according to the Judgment of Origen Eusebius and others of the Ancient Fathers both those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are alike taken always in a Worser sence for Evil and Impure Spirits only But over and besides all this the Pagans do often characterize the Supreme God by such Titles Epithets and Descriptions as are Incommunicably proper to him thereby plainly distinguishing him from all other Inferiour Gods He being sometimes called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Opifex Architect or Maker of the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince and chief Ruler of the Vniverse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greeks and by the Latins Primus Deus the First God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Great God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatest God and the greatest of the Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Highest and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Supreme of the Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Vppermost or most Transcendent God Princeps ille Deus that Chief or Principal God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God of Gods and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Principle of Principles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that Generated or Created this whole Vniverse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that ruleth over the whole World Summus Rector Dominus The Supreme Governour and Lord of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God over all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Ingenerate or Vnmade Self-originated and Self-subsisting Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Monad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnity and Goodness it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is above Essence or Super-essential 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is above mind and Vnderstanding
Commentary on this Inscription Wherefore it may be here observed that those Pagans who acknowledged God to be a Mind and Incorporeal Being secrete from Matter did notwithstanding frequently consider him not abstractly by himself alone but concretely together with the Result of his whole Fecundity or as displaying the World from himself and diffusing himself through all things and being in a manner All Things Accordingly we learn'd before from Horus Apollo that the Egyptians by God meant a Spirit diffusing it self through the World and intimately pervading all things and that they supposed that nothing at all could consist without God And after this manner Jamblichus in his Mysteries interprets the meaning of this Egyptian Inscription For when he had declared that the Egyptians did both in their Doctrine and their Priestly Hierurgies exhort men to ascend above Matter to an Incorporeal Deity the Maker of all he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hermes also propounded this Method and Bithys the Prophet interpreted the same to King Ammon having found it written in Hieroglyphick letters in the Temple of Sais in Egypt as he also there declared the name of that God who extends or diffuses himself through the whole World And this was Neith or Athenae that God thus described I am all that Was Is and Shall be and my Peplum or Veil no mortal could ever uncover Where we cannot but take notice also that whereas the Athena of the Greeks was derived from the Egyptian Neith that she also was famous for her Peplum too as well as the Egyptian Goddess Peplum saith Servius est Propriè Palla picta Faeminea Minervae consecrata Peplum is properly a womanish Pall or Veil embroidered all over and consecrated to Minerva Which Rite was performed at Athens in the Great Panathenaicks with much Solemnity when the Statue of this Goddess was also by those Noble Virgins of the City who embroidered this Veil cloathed all over therewith From whence we may probably conclude that the Statue of the Egyptian Neith also in the Temple of Sais had likewise agreeably to its Inscription such a Peplum or Veil cast over it as Minerva or Artemis at Athens had this Hieroglyphically to signifie that the Deity was invisible and incomprehensible to mortals but had Veiled it self in this Visible Corporeal World which is as it were the Peplum the exteriour variegated or embroidered Vestment of the Deity To all which Considerations may be added in the last place what Proclus hath recorded that there was something more belonging to this Egyptian Inscription than what is mentioned by Plutarch namely these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Sun was the fruit or off-spring which I produced from whence it is manifest that according to the Egyptians the Sun was not the Supreme Deity and that the God here described was as Proclus also observeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Demiurgical Deity the Creator of the whole World and of the Sun Which Supreme Incorporeal Deity was notwithstanding in their Theology said to be All Things because it diffused it self thorough All. Wherefore whereas Plutarch cites this Passage out of Hecataeus concerning the Egyptians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they take the First God and the Vniverse for one and the Same thing the meaning of it cannot be as if the First or Supreme God of the Egyptians were the Sensless Corporeal World Plutarch himself in the very next words declaring him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Invisible and Hidden whom therefore the Egyptians as inviting him to manifest himself to them called Hammon as he elsewhere affirmeth That the Egyptians First God or Supreme Deity did see all things himself being not seen But the forementioned Passage must needs be understood thus that according to the Egyptians the First God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Vniverse were Synonymous expressions often used to signifie the very same thing because the First Supreme Deity is that which contains All Things and diffuseth it self through All Things And this Doctrine was from the Egyptians derived to the Greeks Orpheus declaring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all things were One and after him Parmenides and other Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that One was the Vniverse or All and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Vniverse was Immovable they meaning nothing else hereby but that the First Supreme Deity was both One and All things and Immovable And thus much is plainly intimated by Aristotle in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some who pronounced concerning the whole Vniverse as being but One Nature that is who called the Supreme Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Vniverse because that vertually contained All things in it Nevertheless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Vniverse was frequently taken by the Pagan Theologers also as we have already intimated in a more comprehensive sence for the Deity together with all the extent of its Fecundity God as displaying himself in the World or for God and the World both together the Latter being look'd upon as nothing but an Emanation or Efflux from the Former And thus was the word taken by Empedocles in Plutarch when he affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the World was not the Vniverse but only a small part thereof And according to this sence was the God Pan understood both by the Arcadians and other Greeks not for the mere Corporeal World as Sensless and Inanimate nor as endued with a Plastick Nature only though this was partly included in the Notion of Pan also but as proceeding from a Rational and Intellectual Principle diffusing it self through All or for the whole System of Things God and the World together as one Deity For that the Arcadick Pan was not the Corporeal World alone but chiefly the Intellectual Ruler and Governour of the same appears from this Testimony of Macrobius Hunc Deum Arcades colunt appellantes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non sylvarum Dominum sed universae substantiae Materialis Dominatorem The Arcadians worship this God Pan as their most ancient and honourable God calling him the Lord of Hyle that is not the Lord of the Woods but the Lord or Dominator over all Material Substance And thus does Phornultus likewise describe the Pan of the other Greeks not as the mere Corporeal World Sensless and Inanimate but as having a Rational and Intellectual Principle for the Head of it and presiding over it that is for God and the World both together as one System the World being but the Efflux and Emanation of the Deity The lower parts of Pan saith he were Rough and Goatish because of the asperity of the Earth but his upper parts of a Humane Form because the Ether being Rational and Intellectual is the Hegemonick of the World Adding hereunto that Pan was feigned to be Lustful or Lascivious because of the Multitude of Spermatick Reasons contained in the World and
upon all of the like kind And there are several other Instances of this Poets using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods for God But it is possible that Hesiod's meaning might be the same with Plato's that though the Inferiour Mundane Gods were all made at first by the Supreme God as well as Men yet they being made something sooner than Men did afterwards contribute also to the Making of men But Hesiod's Theogonia or Generation of Gods is not to be understood universally neither but only of the Inferiour Gods that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jupiter being to be excepted out of the number of them whom the same Hesiod as well as Homer makes to be the Father of Gods as also the King of them in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And attributes the Creation of all things to him as Proclus writeth upon this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. By whom all Mortal men are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by whom all things are and not by chance the Poet by a Synechdoche here ascribing the making of all to Jupiter Wherefore Hesiod's Theogonia is to be understood of the Inferiour Gods only and not of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jupiter who was the Father and Maker of them though out of a Watery Chaos and himself therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-existent or Vnmade In like manner that Pindar's Gods were not Eternal but Made or Generated is plainly declared by him in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnum Hominum Vnum Deorum genus Et ex Vnaspiramus Matre utrique There is one kind both of Gods and Men and we both breath from the same Mother or spring from the same Original Where by the common Mother both of Gods and Men the Scholiast understands the Earth and Chaos taking the Gods here for the Inferiour Deities only and principally the Stars This of Pindar's therefore is to be understood of all the other Gods That they were made as well as men out of the Earth or Chaos but not of that Supreme Deity whom the same Pindar elsewhere calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most Powerful of the Gods and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord of all things and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cause of every thing and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that God who is the best Artificer or was the Framer of the whole World and as Clemens Alexandrinus tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Vniverse Which God also according to Pindar Cheiron instructed Achilles to worship principally above all the other Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sence of which words is thus declared by the Scholiast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he should honour and worship the Loud-sounding Jupiter the Lord of Thunder and Lightning transcendently above all the other Gods Which by the way confutes the Opinion of those who contend that the Supreme God as such was not at all Worshipped by the Pagans However this is certain concerning these Three Homer Hesiod and Pindar that they must of necessity either have been all absolute Atheists in acknowledging no Eternal Deity at all but making sensless Chaos Night and the Ocean the Original of all their Gods without exception and therefore of Jupiter himself too that King and Father of them or else assert One only Eternal Unmade Self-existent Deity so as that all the other Gods were Generated or Created by that One. Which latter doubtless was their genuine sence and the only reason why Aristotle and Plato might possibly sometime have a suspicion of the contrary seems to have been this their not understanding that Mosaick Cabbala which both Hesiod and Homer followed of the World's that is both Heaven and Earth's being made at first out of a Watery Chaos for thus is the Tradition declared by St. Peter Ep. 2. Ch. 3. There might be several remarkable Passages to the same purpose produced out of those two Tragick Poets Aeschylus and Sophocles which yet because they have been already cited by Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus and others to avoid unnecessary tediousness we shall here pass by Only we think fit to observe concerning that one famous Passage of Sophocles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Vnus profectò Vnus est tantùm Deus Coeli solique machinam qui condidit Vadumque Ponti coerulum vim Spiritus c. There is in truth One only God who made Heaven and Earth the Sea Air and Winds c. After which followeth also something against Image-worship That though this be such as might well become a Christian and be no where now to be found in those extant Tragedies of this Poet many whereof have been lost yet the sincerity thereof cannot reasonably be at all suspected by us it having been cited by so many of the Ancient Fathers in their Writings against the Pagans as particularly Justin Martyr Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus Justin Martyr Eusebius Cyril and Theodoret of which number Clemens tells us that it was attested likewise by that ancient Pagan Historiographer Hecataeus But there are so many Places to our purpose in Euripides that we cannot omit them all In his Supplices we have this wherein all mens Absolute Dependence upon Jupiter or one Supreme Deity is fully acknowledged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Miseros quid Homines O Deûm Rex Pater Sapere arbitramur Pendet è nutu tuo Res nostra facimusque illa quae visum tibi We have also this excellent Prayer to the Supreme Governour of Heaven and Earth cited out of the same Tragedian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tibi Cunctorum Domino Vinum Salsamque Molam fero seu Ditis Tu sive Jovis nomine gaudes Tu namque Deos Superos inter Sceptrum tractas Sublime Jovis Idem Regnum Terestre tenes Tu Lucem animis infunde Virûm Qui scire volunt quo sata Mentis Lucta sit ortu Quae Causa Mali Cui Coelicolûm rite litando Requiem sit habere laborum Where we may observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter and Pluto are both of them supposed to be Names equally belonging to One and the same Supreme God And the Sum of the Prayer is this That God would infuse Light into the Souls of men whereby they might be enabled to know What is the Root from whence all their Evils spring and by what means they may avoid them Lastly there is another Devotional Passage cited out of Euripides
which conteins also a clear acknowledgment of One Self-existent Being that comprehends and governs the whole World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou Self-sprung Being that do'st All Enfold And in thine Arms Heav'ns Whirling Fabrick hold Who art Encircled with resplendent Light And yet ly'st Mantled o're in Shady Night About whom the Exultant Starry Fires Dance nimbly round in Everlasting Gyres For this sence of the Second and Third Verses which we think the Words will bear and which agrees with that Orphick Passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God being in himself a most bright and dazeling Light is respectively to us and by reason of the Weakness of our Understanding covered over with a Thick Cloud as also with that in the Scripture Clouds and Darkness are round about him I say this sence we chose rather to follow as more Rich and August than that other Vulgar one though Grammatically and Poetically good also That Successive Day and Night together with a Numberless Multitude of Stars perpetually dance round about the Deity Aristophanes in the very beginning of his Plutus distinguisheth betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter and the Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And we have this clear Testimony of Terpander cited by Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou Jupiter who art the Original of all things Thou Jupiter who art the Governour of all And these following Verses are attributed to Menander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rerum universarum Imperatorem Patrem Solum perpetuo colere suppliciter decet Artificem tantae Largitorem copiae Where men are exhorted to Worship the Supreme God only as the sole Author of all Good or at least transcendently above all the other Gods There are also Two remarkable Testimonies one of Hermesianax an ancient Greek Poet and another of Aratus to the same purpose which shall both be reserved for other places Wherefore we pass from the Greek to the Latin Poets where Ennius first appears deriving the Gods in General who were all the Inferiour Deities from Erebus and Night as supposing them all to have been Made or Generated out of Chaos nevertheless acknowledging One who was Divûmque Hominumque Pater Rex both Father and King of Gods and Men that is the Maker or Creator of the whole World who therefore made those Gods together with the World out of Chaos himself being Unmade Plautus in like manner sometimes distinguisheth betwixt Jupiter and the Gods and plainly acknowledgeth One Omniscient Deity Est profecto Deus qui quae nos gerimus auditque videt Which Passage very much resembles that of Manlius Torquatus in Livy Est Coeleste Numen Es Magne Jupiter a strong Asseveration of One Supreme and Universal Deity And the same Plautus in his Rudens clearly asserts one Supreme Monarch and Emperor over All whom the Inferiour Gods are subservient to Qui Gentes omnes Mariaque Terras movet Ejus sum Civis civitate Coelitum Qui est Imperator Divûm atque Hominum Jupiter Is nos per gentes alium aliâ disparat Hominum qui facta mores pietatem fidem Noscamus Qui falsas lites falsis testimoniis Petunt quique in jure abjurant pecuniam Eorum referimus nomina exscripta ad Jovem Cotidie Ille scit quis hic quaerat malum Iterum Ille eam rem judicatam judicat Bonos in aliis tabulis exscriptos habet Atque hoc scelesti illi in animum inducunt suum Jovem se placare posse donis hostiis Sed operam sumptum perdunt quia Nihil Ei acceptum est à perjuris supplicii Where Jupiter the Supreme Monarch of Gods and Men is said to appoint other Inferiour Gods under him over all the parts of the Earth to observe the Actions Manners and Behaviours of men every where and to return the names both of bad and good to him Which Jupiter judges over again all unjust Judgments rendring a righteous retribution to all And though wicked men conceit that he may be bribed with sacrifices yet no worship is acceptable to him from the Perjurious Notwithstanding which this Poet afterwards jumbles the Supreme and Inferiour Gods all together after the usual manner under that one general name of Gods because they are all supposed to be Co-governours of the World Facilius siqui pius est à Diis supplicans Quam qui scelestus est inveniet veniam sibi Again the same Poet elsewhere brings in Hanno the Carthaginian with this form of Prayer addressing himself to Jupiter or the Supreme God Jupiter qui genus colis alisque Hominum per quem vivimus Vitale aevum quem penes spes vitaeque sunt Hominum Omnium Da diem hunc sospitem quaeso rebus meis agundis In the next place we have these Verses of Valerius Soranus an ancient and eminent Poet full to the purpose recorded by Varro Jupiter Omnipotens Regum Rex ipse Deûmque Progenitor Genitrixque Deûm Deus UNUS OMNIS To this sence Omnipotent Jupiter the King of Kings and Gods and the Progenitor and Genitrix the both Father and Mother of those Gods One God and all Gods Where the Supreme and Omnipotent Deity is stiled Progenitor Genitrix Deorum after the same manner as he was called in the Orphick Theology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that expression denoting the Gods and all other Things to have been produced from him alone and without any prexistent matter Moreover according to the tenour of this Ethnick Theology that One God was All Gods and Every God the Pagans supposed that when ever any Inferiour Deity was worshipped by them the Supreme was therein also at once worshipped and honoured Though the sence of Ovid hath been sufficiently declared before yet we cannot well omit some other Passages of his as that grateful and sensible acknowledgment Quod loquor spiro Coelumque lumina Solis Aspicio possumne ingratus immemor esse Ipse dedit And this in the Third of his Metamorph. Ille Pater Rectorque Deûm cui Dextra trisulcis Ignibus armata est qui Nutu concutit Orbem Virgil's Theology also may sufficiently appear from his frequent acknowledgment of an Omnipotent Deity and from those Verses of his before cited out of Aen. 6. wherein he plainly asserts One God to be the Original of all things at least as a Soul of the World Servius Honoratus there paraphrazing thus Deus est quidam Divinus Spiritus qui per quatuor fusus elementa gignit universa God is a certain Spirit which infused through the Four Elements begetteth all things Nevertheless we shall add from him this also of Venus her Prayer to Jupiter Aen. 1. O qui res Hominumque Deûmque Aeternis regis imperiis fulmine
also of Xenophanes with them both concerning the Deity is well declared by Simplicius after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perhaps it will not be improper for us to digress a little here and to gratifie the studious and inquisitive Reader by showing how those Ancient Philosophers though seeming to dissent in their Opinions concerning the Principles did notwithstanding harmoniously agree together As first of all they who discoursed concerning the Intelligible and First Principle of All Xenophanes Parmenides and Melissus of whom Parmenides called it One Finite and Determined because as Vnity must needs exist before Multitude so that which is to all things the cause of Measure bound and Determination ought rather to be described by Measure and Finitude than Infinity as also that which is every way perfect and hath attained its own end or rather is the end of all things as it was the beginning must needs be of a Determinate Nature for that which is imperfect and therefore indigent hath not yet attained its Term or Measure But Melissus though considering the Immutability of the Deity likewise yet attending to the Inexhaustible perfection of its Essence the Vnlimitedness and Vnboundedness of its Power declareth it to be Infinite as well as Ingenit or Vnmade Moreover Xenophanes looking upon the Deity as the Cause of All things and above All things placed it above Motion and Rest and all those Antitheses of Inferiour Beings as Plato likewise doth in the first Hypothesis of his Parmenides whereas Parmenides and Melissus attending to its Stability and constant Immutability and its being perhaps above Energy and Power praised it as Immovable From which of Simplicius it is plain that Parmenides when he called God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Finite and Determined was far from meaning any such thing thereby as if he were a Corporeal Being of Finite Dimensions as some have ignorantly supposed or as if he were any way limited as to Power and Perfection but he understood it in that sence in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by Plato as opposite to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for the Greatest Perfection and as God is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Term and Measure of All Things But Melissus calling God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infinite in the sence before declared as thereby to signifie his Inexhaustible Power and Perfection his Eternity and Incorruptibility doth therein more agree with our present Theology and the now received manner of speaking We have the rather produced all this to shew how Curious the ancient Philosophers were in their Enquiries after God and how exact in their Descriptions of him Wherefore however Anaximanders Infinite were nothing but Eternal Sensless Matter though called by him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divinest thing of all yet Melissus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Infinite was the true Deity With Parmenides and Melissus fully agreed Zeno Eleates also Parmenides his Scholar that One Immovable was All or the Original of All things he meaning thereby nothing else but the Supreme Deity For though it be true that this Zeno did excogitate certain Arguments against the Local Motion of Bodies proceeding upon that Hypothesis of the Infinite Divisibility of Body one of which was famously known by that name of Achilles because it pretended to prove that it was impossible upon that Hypothesis for the Swift-footed Achilles ever to overtake the creeping Snail which Arguments of his whether or no they are well answered by Aristotle is not here to our purpose to enquire yet all this was nothing else but Lusus Ingenii a sportful exercise of Zeno's Wit he being a subtil Logician and Disputant or perhaps an Endeavour also to show how puzling and perplexing to humane Understanding the conception even of the most vulgar and confessed Phaenomena of Nature may be For that Zeno Eleates by his One Immovable that was All meant not the Corporeal World no more than Melissus Parmenides and Xenophanes is evident from Aristotle writing thus concerning him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zeno by his one Ens which neither was moved nor moveable meaneth God Moreover the same Aristotle informs us that this Zeno endeavoured to Demonstrate that there was but One God from that Idea which all men have of him as that which is the Best the Supreme and most Powerful of all or as an absolutely Perfect Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If God be the Best of All things then he must needs be One. Which Argument was thus pursued by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is God and the Power of God to prevail conquer and rule over all Wherefore by how much any thing falls short of the Best by so much does it fall short of being God Now if there be supposed more such Beings whereof some are Better some worse those could not be all Gods because it is Essential to God not to be transcended by any but if they be conceived to be so many Equal Gods then would it not be the nature of God to be the Best one Equal being neither better nor worse than another Wherefore if there be a God and this be the nature of him then can there be but One. And indeed otherwise he could not be able to do whatever he would Empedocles is said to have been an Emulator of Parmenides also which must be understood of his Metaphysicks because in his Physiology which was Atomical he seems to have transcended him Now that Empedocles acknowledged One Supreme and Universal Numen and that Incorporeal too may be concluded from what hath been already cited out of his Philosophick Poems Besides which the Writer De Mundo who though not Aristotle yet was a Pagan of good antiquity clearly affirmeth that Empedocles derived all things whatsoever from One Supreme Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All the things that are upon the Earth and in the Air and Water may truly be called the works of God who ruleth over the World Out of whom according to the Physical Empedocles proceed all things that were are and shall be viz. Plants Men Beasts and Gods Which notwithstanding we conceive to be rather true as to Empedocles his sence than his words he affirming as it seems in that cited place that all these things were made not immediately out of God but out of Contention and Friendship because Simplicius who was furnished with a Copy of Empedocles his Poems twice brings in that cited Passage of his in this connexion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Things are divided and segregated by Contention but joyned together by Friendship from which Two Contention and Friendship all that was is and shall be proceeds as trees men and women beasts birds and fishes and last of all the long lived and honourable Gods
Wherefore the sence of Empedocles his words here was this that the whole created World together with all things belonging to it viz. Plants Beasts Men and Gods was made from Contention and Friendship Nevertheless since according to Empedocles Contention and Friendship did themselves depend also upon one Supreme Deity which he with Parmenides and Xenophanes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or The Very One the Writer De Mundo might well conclude that according to Empedocles all things whatsoever and not only men but Gods were derived from One Supreme Deity And that this was indeed Empedocles his sence appears plainly from Aristotle in his Metaphysicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Empedocles makes Contention to be a certain Principle of Corruption and Generation Nevertheless he seems to generate this Contention it self also from the Very One that is from the Supreme Deity For all things according to him are from this Contention God only excepted he writing after this manner From which that is Contention and Friendship all the things that have been are and shall be Plants Beasts Men and Gods derived their Original For Empedocles it seems supposed that were it not for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Discord or Contention all things would be One So that according to him all things whatsoever proceded from Contention or Discord together with a mixture of Friendship save only the Supreme God who hath therefore no Contention at all in him because he is Essentially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnity it self and Friendship From whence Aristotle takes occasion to quarrel with Empedocles as if it would follow from his Principles that the Supreme and most Happy God was the Least wise of all as being not able to know any thing besides himself or in the World without him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This therefore happens to Empedocles that according to his Principles the most Happy God is the least Wise of all other things for he cannot know the Elements because he hath no Contention in him all Knowledge being by that which is like himself writing thus We know Earth by Earth Water by Water Air by Air and Fire by Fire Friendship by Friendship and Contention by Contention But to let this pass Empedocles here making the Gods themselves to be derived from Contention and Friendship the Supreme Deity or most Happy God only excepted who hath no Contention in him and from whom Contention and Friendship themselves were derived plainly acknowledged both One Unmade Deity the Original of all things under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very One and many other Inferiour Gods generated or produced by him they being Juniors to Contention or Discord as this was also Junior to Vnity the First and Supreme Deity Which Gods of Empedocles that were begotten from Contention as well as Men and other things were doubtless the Stars and Demons Moreover we may here observe that according to Empedocles his Doctrine the true Original of all the Evil both of Humane Souls and Demons which he supposed alike Lapsable was derived from that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Discord and Contention that is necessarily contained in the Nature of them together with the the Ill Use of their Liberty both in this Present and their Pre-existent State So that Empedocles here trode in the footsteps of Pythagoras whose Praises he thus loudly sang forth in his Poems 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Horum de numero quidam praestantia norat Plurima Mentis Opes Amplas sub pectore servans Omnia Vestigans Sapientum Docta Reperta c. XXII Before we come to Socrates and Plato we shall here take notice of some other Pythagoreans and Eminent Philosophers who clearly asserted One Supreme and Vniversal Numen though doubtless acknowledging withal Other Inferiour Gods Philo in his Book De Mundi Opificio writing of the Hebdomad or Septenary Number and observing that according to the Pythagoreans it was called both a Motherless and Virgin Number because it was the only number within the Decad which was neither Generated nor did it self Generate tells us that therefore it was made by them a Symbol of the Supreme Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Pythagoreans likened this Number to the Prince and Governour of All Things or the Supreme Monarch of the Vniverse as thinking it to bear a resemblance of his Immutability which Phancy of theirs was before taken notice of by us However Philo hereupon occasionally cites this Remarkable Testimony of Philolaus the Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God saith he is the Prince and Ruler over all alwayes One Stable Immovable Like to himself but Vnlike to every thing else To which may be added what in Stobaeus is further recorded out of the same Philolaus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This World was from Eternity and will remain to Eternity One governed by One which is Cognate and the Best Where notwithstanding he seemeth with Ocellus to maintain the Worlds Pre-eternity And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore said Philolaus the World might well be called the Eternal Energy or Effect of God and of Successive Generation Jamblichus in his Protrepticks cites a Passage out of Archytas another Pythagorean to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Whosoever is able to reduce all kinds of things under One and the same Principle this man seems to me to have found out an excellent Specula or high Station from whence he may be able to take a Large View and Prospect of God and of all other things and he shall clearly perceive that God is the Beginning and End and Middle of All things that are performed according to Justice and Right Reason Upon which words of Archytas Jamblichus thus glosseth Archytas here declares the End of all Theological Speculation to be this not to rest in Many Principles but to reduce all things under One and the same Head Adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That this knowledge of the first Vnity the Original of All things is the end of all Contemplation Moreover Stobaeus cites this out of Archytas his Book of Principles viz. That besides Matter and Form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There is another more necessary cause which Moving brings the Form to the Matter and that this is the First and most Powerful Cause which is fitly called God So that there are Three Principles God Matter and Form God the Artificer and Mover and Matter that which is moved and Form the Art introduced into the Matter In which same Stobean Excerption it also follows afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there must be something better than Mind and that this thing better than Mind is that which we properly call God Ocellus also in the same Stobaeus thus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life contains the bodies of Animals the Cause of which
which interpretations it is supposed that the Pagans did worship the True God the Creator of the whole World though they worshipped the Creature also Besides him or perhaps in some sence Above him and More than him also But as for that other Interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Beza chose rather to follow that they worshipped the Creature the Creator being wholly Passed by this is no true Literal Version but only a Gloss or Commentary upon the words made according to a certain preconceived and extravavagant opinion that the Pagans did not at all worship the Supreme God or Creator but universally transfer all their worship upon the Creature only But in what sence the Pagans might be said to worship the Creatures Above or Beyond or More than the Creator because it is not possible that the Creature as a Creature should be worshipped with more Internal and Mental Honour than the Creator thereof look'd upon as such we leave others to enquire Whether or no because when Religious Worship which properly and only belongeth to the Creator and not at all to the Creature is transferred from the Creator upon the Creature according to a Scripture-Interpretation and Account such may be said to worship the Creature more than the Creator Or whether because some of these Pagans might more frequently address their Devotions to their Inferiour Gods as Stars Demons and Hero's as thinking the Supreme God either Above their Worship or Incomprehensible or Inaccessible by them Or lastly Whether because the Image and Statue-worshippers among the Pagans whom the Apostle there principally regards did direct all their External Devotion to Sensible Objects and Creaturely Forms However it cannot be thought that the Apostle here taxes the Pagans meerly for worshipping Creatures Above the Creator as if they had not at all offended had they worshipped them only in an Equality with him but doubtless their sin was that they gave any Religious Worship at all to the Creature though in way of Aggravation of their crime it be said that they also worshipped the Creature more than the Creator Thus we see plainly that the Pagan Superstition and Idolatry according to the True Scripture notion of it consisted not in Worshipping of Many Creators but in Worshipping the Creatures together with the Creator Besides this we have in the Acts of the Apostles an Oration which St. Paul made at Athens in the Areopagitick Court beginning after this manner Ye men of Athens I perceive that ye are every way more than ordinarily Religious for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be taken there in a good sence it being not only more likely that St. Paul would in the beginning of his Oration thus captare benevolentiam conciliate their benevolence with some commendation of them but also very unlikely that he would call their worshipping of the True God by the name of Superstition for so it followeth For as I passed by and beheld your sacred things or monuments I found an Altar with this Inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TO THE VNKNOWN GOD. It is true that both Philostratus and Pausanias write that there were at Athens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Altars of Vnknown Gods but their meaning in this might well be not that there were Altars Dedicated to Unknown Gods Plurally but that there were several Altars which had this Singular Inscription TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. And that there was at least One such besides this Scripture-record is evident from that Dialogue in Lucian's Works entituled Philopatris where Critias useth this form of Oath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No by the Vnknown God at Athens and Triephon in the close of that Dialogue speaketh thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But we having found out that Vnknown God at Athens and worshipped him with hands stretched up to Heaven will give thanks to him as having been thought worthy to be made subject to this power Which passages as they do unquestionably refer to that Athenian Inscription either upon One or more Altars so does the latter of them plainly imply that this Vnknown God of the Athenians was the Supreme Governour of the World And so it follows in St. Paul's Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whom therefore you ignorantly worship under this name of the Vnknown God Him declare I unto you the God that made the World and all things in it the Lord of Heaven and Earth From which place we may upon firm Scripture-Authority conclude these Two Things First that by the Vnknown God of the Athenians was meant the Only True God He who made the World and all things in it who in all probability was therefore styled by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Vnknown God because he is not only Invisible but also Incomprehensible by mortals of whom Josephus against Appion writeth thus That he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowable to us only by the Effects of his Power but as to his own Essence Vnknowable or Incomprehensible But when in Dion Cassius the God of the Jews is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only Invisible but also Ineffable and when he is called in Lucan Incerius Deus an Vncertain God the reason hereof seems to have been not only because there was no Image of him but also because he was not vulgarly then known by any Proper Name the Tetragrammaton being religiously forborn amongst the Jews in common use that it might not be prophaned And what some learned men have here mentioned upon this occasion of the Pagans sometimes sacrifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Proper and Convenient God without signifying any name seems to be nothing to this purpose that proceeding only from a Superstitious Fear of these Pagans supposing several Gods to preside over several things lest they should be mistaken in not applying to the Right and Proper God in such certain cases and so their Devotion prove unsuccessful and ineffectual But that this Vnknown God is here said to be ignorantly worshipped by the Athenians is to be understood chiefly in regard of their Polytheism and Idolatry The Second thing that may be concluded from hence is this That these Athenian Pagans did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Religiously Worship the True God the Lord of Heaven and Earth and so we have a Scripture-confutation also of that opinion That the Pagans did not at all worship the Supreme God Lastly St. Paul citing this passage out of Aratus a Heathen Poet concerning Zeus or Jupiter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we are his Off-spring and interpreting the same of the True God in whom we live and move and have our being we have also here a plain Scripture-acknowledgment that by the Zeus of the Greekish Pagans was sometimes at least meant the True God And indeed that Aratus his Zeus was neither a man born in Crete nor in Arcadia but the Maker and Supreme Goveâ—nour of the whole World is evident both from the antecedent and the subsequent Verses
Exquiliis So great is the number of these Gods that even Hell or the state of death it self Diseases and Many Plagues are numbred amongst them whilst with a trembling fear we desire to have these pacified And therefore was there a Temple publickly Dedicated in the Palace to the Fever as likewise Altars elsewhere erected to Orbona and to Evil Fortune Of the latter Balbus in Cicero Quo ex genere Cupidinis Voluptatis Lubentinae Veneris Vocabula Consecrata sunt Vitiosarum rerum non Naturalium Of which kind also are those Names of Lust and Pleasure and Wanton Venery things Vicious and not natural Consecrated and Deified Cicero in his Book of Laws informs us that at Athens there were Temples Dedicated also to Contumely and Impudence but withal giving us this censure of such practices Quae omnia ejusmodi detestanda repudianda sunt All which kind of things are to be detested and rejected and nothing to be Deified but what is Vertuous or Good Notwithstanding which it is certain that such Evil Things as these were Consecrated to no other end than that they might be Deprecated Moreover as these Things of Natures or Nature of Things were sometimes Deified by the Pagans plainly and nakedly in their own Appellative Names so was this again sometimes done disguisedly under other Counterfeit Proper Names as Pleasure was Deified under the Names of Volupia and of Lubentina Venus Time according to the Opinion of some under the Name of Cronos or Saturn which as it Produceth all things so devours all things into it self again Prudence or Wisdom likewise under the Names of Athena or Minerva For it is plain that Origen understood it thus when Celsus not only approved of Worshipping God Almighty in the Sun and in Minerva as that which was Lawful but also commended it as a thing Highly Pious he making this Reply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We speak well of the Sun as a good work of God's c. but as for that Athena or Minerva which Celsus here joyneth with the Sun this is a thing Fabulously devised by the Greeks whether according to some Mystical Arcane and Allegorical Sence or without it when they say that she was begotten out of Jupiter 's Brain All Armed And again afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be granâ—ed that by Athena or Minerva be Tropologically meant Prudence c. Wherefore not only according to the Poetical but also to the Political and Civil Theology of the Pagans these Accidental Things of Nature and Affections of Substances Personated were made so many Gods and Goddesses Cicero himself in his Book of Laws approving of such Political Gods as these Benè verograve quod Mens Pietas Virtus Fides consecratur manu quarum omnium Romae dedicata publicè Templa sunt ut illa qui habeant habent autem omnes boni Deos ipsos in animis suis collocatos putent It is well that Mind Piety Virtue and Faith are consecrated all which have their Temples publickly dedicated at Rome that so they who possess these things as all Good men do may think that they have the Gods themselves placed in their minds And himself makes a Law for them in his own Common-wealth but with a Cautionary Provision that no Evil and Vicious Things be Consecrated amongst them Ast olla propter quae datur homini adscensus in Coelum Mentem Virtutem Pietatem Fidem earumque laudum delubra sunto Nec ulla vitiorum Solemnia obeunto Let them also worship those things by means whereof men ascend up to Heaven and let there be Shrines or Temples Dedicated to them But let no Religious Ceremonies be performed to Vicious things Notwithstanding all which according to that Theology of the Pagans which was called by Varro Natural whereby is meant not that which was Physiological only but that which is True and Real and by Scaevola Philosophical and which is by both opposed not only to the Poetical and Fabulous but also to the Political and Civil I say according to this Theology of theirs these Accidental Things of Nature Deified could by no means be acknowledged for True and Proper Gods because they were so far from having any Life and Sense in them that they had not so much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Real Subsistence or Substantial Essence of their own And thus does Origen dispute against Minervas Godship as Tropologically interpreted to Prudence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Athena or Minerva be Tropologized into Prudence then let the Pagans show what Substantial Essence it hath or that it Really Subsists according to this Tropology Which is all one as if he should have said Let the Pagans then shew how this can be a God or Goddess which hath not so much as any Substantial Essence nor Subsists by it self but is a meer Accidental Affection of Substances only And the same thing is likewise urged by Origen concerning other such kind of Gods of theirs as Memory the Mother of the Muses and the Graces all naked in his First Book where Celsus contended for a multiplicity of Gods against the Jews that these things having not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Substantial Essence or Subsistence could not possibly be accounted Gods and therefore were nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer Figments of the Greeks Things made to have Humane Bodies and so Personated and Deified And we think there cannot be a truer Commentary upon this Passage of Origen's than these following verses of Prudentius in his Second Book against Symmachus Desine si pudor est Geniilis ineptia iandem Res Incorporeas Simulatis Fingere membris Let the Gentiles be at last ashamed if they have any shame in them of this their folly in describing and setting forth Incorporeal things with Counterfeit Humane Members Where Accidents and Affections of Things such as Victory was whose Altar Symmachus there contended for the Restauration of are by Prudentius called Res Incorporeae Incorporeal Things accordingly as the Greek Philosophers concluded that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qualities Incorporeal Neither is it possible that the Pagans themselves should be insensible hereof and accordingly we find that Cotta in Cicero doth for this reason utterly banish and explode these Gods out of the Philosophick and True Theology Num censes igitur subtiliore ratione opus esse ad haec refellenda Nam Mentem Fidem Spem Virtutem Honorem Victoriam Salutem Concordiam caeteraque ejusmodi Rerum Vim habere videmus non Deorum Aut enim in nobismet insunt ipsis ut Mens ut Spes ut Fides ut Virtus ut Concordia aut optandae nobis sunt ut Honos ut Salus ut Victoria Quare autem in his Vis Deorum sit tum intelligam cum cognovero Is there any need think you of any great Subtilty to confute these things For Mind Faith
neque Dii sunt neque Deos se vocari aut coli volunt c. Nec tamen illi sunt qui vulgo coluntur quorum exiguus certus est numerus But these Ministers of the Divine Kingdom or Subservient Created Spirits are neither Gods nor would they be called Gods or honoured as such c. Nor indeed are they those Gods that are now vulgarly worshipped by the Pagans of which there is but a Small and Certain number That is the Pagan Gods are reduced into certain Ranks and the Number of them is determin'd by the Utilities of Humane Life of which their Noble and Select Gods are but a few Whereas saith he the Ministers of the Supreme God are according to their own Opinion not Twelve nor Twenty nor Three Hundred and Sixty but Innumerable Stars and Demons Moreover Aristotle in his Book against Zeno supposing the Idea of God to be this the Most Powerful of all things or the Most Perfect Being objecteth thus that according to the Laws of Cities and Countries that is the Civil Theology there seems to be no One absolutely Powerful Being but One God is supposed to be most Powerful as to one thing and another as to another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereas Zeno takes it for granted that men have an Idea ïn their minds of God as One the most Excellent and most Powerful Being of all this doth not seem to be according to Law that is the Civil Theology for there the Gods are mutually Better one than another respectively as to several things and therefore Zeno took not this Consent of mankind concerning God from that which vulgarly seemeth From which passage of Aristotle's we may well conclude that the Many Political Gods of the Pagans were not all of them vulgarly look'd upon as the Subservient Ministers of One Supreme God and yet they generally acknowledging as Aristotle himself confesseth a Monarchy and consequently not many Independent Deities it must needs follow as Zeno doubtless would reply that these their Political Gods were but One and the same Supreme Natural God as it were Parcell'd out and Multiplied that is receiving Several Denominations according to Several Notions of him and as he exerciseth Different Powers and produceth Various Effects And this we have sufficiently prov'd already to have been the general sence of the Chief Pagan Doctors that these Many Political and Popular Gods were but the Polyonymy of One Natural God that is either Partial Considerations of him or his Various Powers and Vertues Effects and Manifestations in the World severally Personated and Deified And thus does Vossius himself afterwards confess also That according to the Natural Theology the Many Pagan Gods were but so many Several Denominations of One God though this Learned Philologer doth plainly straiten and confine the Notion of this Natural Theology too much and improperly call the God thereof the Nature of Things however acknowledging it such a Nature as was endued with Sense and Vnderstanding His Words are these Dispar verò sententia Theologorum Naturalium qui non aliud Numen agnoscebant quà m Naturam Rerum eóque omnia Gentium Numina referebant c. Nempe mens eorum fuit sicut Natura esset occupata circa hanc vel illam Affectionem ita Numina Nominaque Deorum variare Cum igitur ubicunque Vim aliquam majorem viderent ita Divinum aliquid crederent eò etiam devenere ut immanem Deorum Dearumque fingerent Catervam Sagaciores interim haec cuncta Vnum esse Numen aiebant putà Rerum Naturam quae licet una foret pro variis tamen Effectis varia sortiretur nomina vario etiam afficeretur cultu But the Case is very different as to the Natural Theologers who acknowledged no other God but the Nature of Things and referred all the Pagan Gods to that For they conceived that as Nature was occupied about several things so were the Divine Powers and the Names of Gods multiplied and diversified And where-ever they saw any Greater Force there did they presently conceit something Divine and by that means came they at length to feign an innumerable company of Gods and Goddesses But the more sagacious in the mean time affirmed all these to be but One and the same God to wit the Nature of Things which though Really but One yet according to its various Effects both received divers Names and was Worshipped after different manners Where Vossius calls the Supreme God of these Natural Theologers the Nature of Things as if the Natural Theology had been denominated from Physicks or Natural Philosophy only whereas we have already shewed that the Natural Theology of Varro and Scaevola was of equal extent with the Philosophick whose only Numen that it was not a Blind and Vnintelligible Nature of Things doth sufficiently appear from that History thereof before given by us as also that it was called Natural in another sence as Real and as opposite to Opinion Phancy and Fabulosity or what hath no Reality of Existence any where in the World Thus does St. Austin distinguish betwixt Natura Deorum the True Nature of the Gods and Hominum Instituta the Institutes of Men concerning them As also he sets down the Difference betwixt the Civil and Natural Theology according to the Mind of Varro in this manner Fieri potest ut in Vrbe secundum Falsas opiniones ea colantur credantur quorum in Mundo vel extra Mundum Natura sit nusquam It may come to pass that those Things may be worshipped and believed in Cities according to False opinions which have no Nature or Real Existence any where either in the World or without it Wherefore if instead of this Nature of Things which was properly the God of none but only of such Atheistick Philosophers as Epicurus and Strato we substitute that Great Mind or Soul of the whole World which Pervadeth All Things and is Diffus'd thorough All which was the True God of the Pagan Theists this of Vossius will be unquestionably true concerning their Natural Theologers that according to them those Many Poetical and Political Gods before mentioned were but One and the same Natural or Real God who in respect of his Different Vertues Powers and Effects was called by several Names and worshipped after different manners Yet nevertheless so as that according to those Theologers there were Really also Many other Inferiour Ministers of this One Supreme God whether called Minds or Demons that were supposed to be the Subservient Executioners of all those several Powers of his And accordingly we had before this full and true account of the Pagans Natural Theology set down out of Prudentius In Vno Constituit jus omne Deo cui serviat ingens Virtutum ratio Variis instructa Ministris Viz. That it acknowledged One Supreme Omnipotent God ruling over all who displayeth and exerciseth his Manifold Vertues and Powers in the world all severally Personated and Deified
Vniversal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and all things or that which Comprehends the whole which is all one as to say in being Infinite and Omnipotent and the Creator of the whole World Now say these Platonists if any thing more were to be added to the General Essence of the Godhead besides this then must it be Self-existence or to be Vnderived from any other and the First Original Principle and Cause of all but if this be made so Essential to the Godhead or Vncreated Nature as that whatsoever is not thus Originally of it Self is therefore ipso facto to be detruded and thrust down into the rank of Creatures then must both the Second and Third Hypostases as well in the Christian as the Platonick Trinity upon this Supposition needs be Creatures and not God the Second deriving its whole Being and Godship from the First and the Third both from the First and Second and so neither First nor Second being the Cause of all things But it is unquestionable to these Platonists that whatsoever is Eternal Necessarily Existent Infinite and Omnipotent and the Creator of All things ought therefore to be Religiously Worshipped and Adored as God by all Created Beings Wherefore this Essence of the Godhead that belongeth alike to all the Three Hypostases being as all other Essences Perfectly Indivisible it might well be affirmed according to Platonick Grounds that all the Three Divine Hypostases though having some Subordination in them yet in this sence are Co-Equal they being all truly and alike God or Vncreated And the Platonists thus distinguishing betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Essence of the Godhead and the Distinct Hypostases or Personalities thereof and making the First of them to be Common General and Vniversal are not without the consent and approbation of the Orthodox Fathers herein they determining likewise that in the Deity Essence or Substance differs from Hypostasis as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is Common and General differs from that which is Singular and Individual Thus besides many others St. Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Essence or Substance of the Deity differs from the Hypostasis after the same manner as a Genus or Species differs from an Individuum So that as well according to these Fathers as the Platonists that Essence or Substance of the Godhead which all the Three Persons agree in is not Singular but Generical or Vniversal they both supposing each of the Persons also to have their own Numerical Essence Wherefore according to this Distinction betwixt the Essence or Substance of the Godhead and the Particular Hypostases approved by the Orthodox Fathers neither Plato nor any Intelligent Platonist would scruple to subscribe that Form of the Nicene Council that the Son or Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-Essential or Con-Substantial and Co-Equal with the Father And we think it will be proved afterwards that this was the very Meaning of the Nicene Council it self that the Son was therefore Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with the Father meerly because he was God and not a Creature Besides which the Genuine Platonists would doubtless acknowledge also all the Three Hypostases of their Trinity to be Homoousian Co-Essential or Con-Substantial yet in a further sence than this namely as being all of them One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divinity For thus besides that passage of Porphyrius before cited may these words also of St. Cyril be understood concerning them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That according to them the Essence of God extendeth to Three Hypostases or comprehendeth Three Hypostases in it that is not only so as that each of these Three is God but also that they are not so many Separate and Divided Gods but all of them together One God or Divinity For though the Platonists as Pagans being not so Scrupulous in their Language as we Christians are do often call them Three Gods and a First Second and Third God yet notwithstanding as Philosophers did they declare them to be One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divinity and that as it seems upon these several accounts following First Because they are Indivisibly conjoyned together as the Splendour is Indivisible from the Sun And then Because they are Mutually Inexistent in each other the First being in the Second and both First and Second in the Third And Lastly Because the Entireness of the whole Divinity is made up of all these Three together which have all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and the same Energy or Action ad extra And therefore as the Centre Radious Distance and Movable Circumference may be all said to be Co-Essential to a Sphere and the Root Stock and Bows or Branches Co-Essential to an entire Tree so but in much a more perfect sence are the Platonick Tagathon Nous and Psyche Co-Essential to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Divinity in the whole Vniverse Neither was Athanasius a stranger to this Notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also he affirming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Branches are Co-Essential with and Indivisible from the Vine and Illustrating the Trinity by that Similitude Neither must it be thought that the Whole Trinity is One after the very same manner that each Single Person thereof is in it self One for then should there be a Trinity also in each Person Not that it is so called Vndivided as if Three were not Three in it which were to make the Mystery Contemptible but because all the Three Hypostases or Persons are Indivisibly and Inseparably united to each other as the Sun and the Splendour and really but One God Wherefore though there be some Subordination of Hypostases or Persons in Plato's Trinity as it is commonly represented yet is this only ad intrà within the Deity it self in their Relation to one another and as compared amongst themselves but ad extrà Outwardly and to Vs are they all One and the same God concurring in all the same Actions and in that respect without any Inequality because in Identity there can be no Inequality Furthermore the Platonick Christian would in favour of these Platonists urge also that according to the Principles of Christianity it self there must of necessity be some Dependence and Subordination of the Persons of the Trinity in their Relation to one another a Priority and Posteriority not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Dignity as well as Order amongst them First because that which is Originally of it self and Underived from any other must needs have some Superiority and Preheminence over that which derives its whole Being and Godship from it as the Second doth from the First alone and the Third from the First with the Second Again though all those Three Hypostases or Persons be alike Omnipotent ad Extra or Outwards yet ad Intra Inwards or within the Deity it self are they not so the Son being not
Substance affirmeth the Son to be of Another Different Substance from the Father and therefore not God but like to God only Neither doth such a one rightly understand those words Of the Substance of the Father he not thinking the Son to be so Consubstantial or of the Essence and Substance of the Father as one man is Consubstantial or Of the Essence or Substance of another who begat him For he who affirmeth that the Son is not so Of God as a man is Of a man according to Essence or Substance but that he is Like him only as a Statue is like a Man or as a Man may be Like to God it is manifest that such a one though he use the word Homoousios yet he doth not really mean it For he will not understand it according to the customary signification thereof for that which hath One and the Same Essence or Substance this word being used by Greeks and Pagans in no other sence than to signifie that which hath the Same Nature as we ought to believe concerning the Father Son and Holy Ghost Where we see plainly that though the word Homoousios be interpreted That which hath One and the Same Essence or Substance yet is this understood of the Same Common Nature and as one man is of the same Essence or Substance with another We might here also add to this the concurrent testimonies of the other Orthodox Fathers but to avoid tediousness we shall omit them and only insert some passages out of St. Austin to the same purpose For he in his First Book Contra Maxim Chap. the 15. writeth thus Duo veri Homines etsi nullus eorum Filius sit Alterius Unius tamen Ejusdem sunt Substantiae Homo autem alterius Hominis Verus filius nullo modo potest nisi Ejusdem cum Patre esse Substantiae etiamsi non sit per omnia Similis Patri Quocirca Verus Dei Filius Unius cum Patre Substantiae est quia Verus Filius est per omnia est Patri similis quia est Dei Filius Two True men though neither of them be Son to the other yet are they both of One and the Same Substance But a man who is the true Son of another man can by no means be of a Different Substance from his Father although he be not in all respects like unto him Wherefore the true Son of God is both of one Substance with the Father because he is a true Son and he is also in all respects like to him because he is the Son of God Where Christ or the Son of God is said to be no otherwise of One Substance with God the Father than here amongst men the Son is of the same Substance with his Father or any one man with another Again the same S. Austin in his Respons ad Sermonem Arianorum expresseth himself thus Ariani nos vocitant Homoousianos quia contra eorum errorem Graeco vocabulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defendimus Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum id est Unius Ejusdemque Substantiae vel ut expressiùs dicamus Essentiae quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graecè appellatur quod planiùs dicitur Unius Ejusdemque Naturae Et tamen siquis istorum qui nos Homoousianos vocant Filium suum non cujus ipse esset sed Diversae diceret esse Naturae Exhaeredari ab ipso mallet Filius quam hoc putarà Quanta igitur impietate isti caecantur qui cum confiteantur Vnicum Dei Filium nolunt Ejusdem Naturae cujus Pater est confiteri sed diversae atque imparis multis modis rebusque dissimilis tanquam non de Deo Natus sed ab illo de Nihilo sit Creatus Gratiâ Filius non Naturâ The Arians call us Homoousians because in opposition to their Errour we defend the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be in the Language of the Greeks Homoousious that is of One and the Same-Substance or to speak more clearly Essence this being in Greek called Usiah which is yet more plainly thus expressed of One and the Same Nature And yet there is none of their own Sons who thus call us Homoousians who would not as willingly be disinherited as be accounted of a Different Nature from his Father How great impiety therefore are they blinded with who though they acknowledge that there is One only Son of God yet will not confess him to be of the same Nature with his Father but different and unequal and many ways unlike him as if he were not Born of God but Created out of Nothing by him himself being a Creature and so a Son not by Nature but Grace only Lastly to name no more places in his First Book De Trinitate he hath these words Si Filius Creatura non est ejusdem cum Patre Substantiae est Omnis enim Substantia quae Deus non est Creatura est quae Creatura non est Deus est Et si non est Filius ejusdem Substantiae cujus est Pater ergo Facta Substantia est If the Son be not a Creature then is he of the same Substance with the Father for whatever Substance is not God is Creature and whatever is not Creature is God And therefore if the Son be not of the Same Substance with the Father he must needs be a Made and Created Substance and not truly God Lastly that the ancient Orthodox Fathers who used the word Homoousios against Arius intended not therein to assert the Son to have One and the same Singular or Individual Essence with the Father appeareth plainly from their disclaiming and disowning those two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning the Former of which Epiphanius thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We affirm not the Son to be Tautoousion One and the same Substance with the Father lest this should be taken in way of compliance with Sabellius nevertheless do we assert him to be the Same in Godhead and in Essence and in Power Where it is plain that when Epiphanius affirmed the Son to be the same with the Father in Godhead and Essence he understood this only of a Generical or Specifical and not of a Singular or Individual Sameness namely that the Son is no Creature but God also as the Father is and this he intimates to be the true and genuine sence of the word Homoousios he therefore rejecting that other word Tautoousios because it would be liable to misinterpretation and to be taken in the Sabellian sence for that which hath One and the Same Singular and Individual Essence which the word Homoousios could not be obnoxious to And as concerning that other word Monoousios Athanasius himself in his Exposition of Faith thus expresly condemns it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We do not think the Son to be really One and the Same with the Father as the Sabellians do and to be Monoousios and not Homoousios they thereby
as that it is most certain on the contrary that were there nothing Incomprehensible to us who are but contemptible Pieces and small Atoms of the Universe were there no other Being in the world but what our Finite and Imperfect Vnderstandings could span or fathom and encompass round about look thorough and thorough have a commanding view of and perfectly Conquer and Subdue under them then could there be nothing Absolutely and Infinitely Perfect that is no God For though that of Empedocles be not true in a Literal Sence as it seems to have been taken by Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That by Earth we see Earth by Water Water and by Fire Fire and understand every thing by something of the same within our selves yet is it certain that every thing is apprehended by some Internal Congruity in that which apprehends which perhaps was the sence intended by that Noble Philosophick Poet. Wherefore it cannot possibly otherwise be but that the Finiteness Scantness and Imperfection of our narrow Understandings must make them Asymmetral or Incommensurate to that which is Absolutely and Infinitely Perfect And Nature it self plainly intimates to us that there is some such Absolutely Perfect Being which though not Inconceivable yet is Incomprehensible to our Finite Understandings by certain Passions which it hath implanted in us that otherwise would want an Object to display themselves upon namely those of Devout Veneration Adoration and Admiration together with a kind of Ecstasie and Pleasing Horrour which in the silent Language of Nature seem to speak thus much to us that there is some Object in the World so much Bigger and Vaster than our Mind and Thoughts that it is the very same to them that the Ocean is to narrow Vessels so that when they have taken into themselves as much as they can thereof by Contemplation and filled up all their Capacity there is still an Immensity of it left without which cannot enter in for want of room to receive it and therefore must be apprehended after some other strange and more mysterious manner viz. by their being as it were Plunged into it and Swallowed up or Lost in it To conclude the Deity is indeed Incomprehensible to our Finite and Imperfect Vnderstandings but not Inconceivable and therefore there is no Ground at all for this Atheistick Pretence to make it a Non-Entity We come to the Third Atheistick Argumentation That because Infinity which according to Theology is included in the Idea of God and pervadeth all his Attributes is utterly Vnconceivable the Deity it self is therefore an Impossibility and Non-Entity To this Sence sound sundry Passages of a Modern Writer as Whatsoever we know we learn from our Phantasms but there is no Phantasm of Infinite and therefore no Knowledge or Conception of it Again Whatsoever we Imagine is Finite and therefore there is no Conception or Idea of that which we call Infinite No man can have in his Mind an Image of Infinite Time or of Infinite Power Wherefore the Name of God is used not to make us conceive him but only that we may Honour him The true Meaning whereof as may be plainly gathered from other Passages of the same Writer is thus to be Interpreted That there is nothing of Philosophick Truth and Reality in the Idea or Attributes of God not any other Sence in those Words but only to signifie the Veneration and Astonishment of mens own Confounded Minds And accordingly the Word Infinite is declared to signifie nothing at all in that which is so called there being no such thing really existing but only the Inability of mens own Minds together with their Rustick Astonishment and Admiration Wherefore when the same Writer determins that God must not be said to be Finite this being no good Courtship nor Complement and yet the Word Infinite signifieth nothing in the thing it self nor hath any Conception at all answering to it he either does plainly abuse his Reader or else he leaves him to make up this Conclusion That since God is neither Finite nor Infinite he is an Vnconceivable Nothing In like manner another Learned Well-willer to Atheism declareth That he who calleth any thing Infinite doth but Rei quam non capit attribuere nomen quod non intelligit Attribute an Vnintelligible Name to a thing Vnconceivable because all Conception is Finite and it is impossible to conceive any thing that hath no Bounds or Limits But that which is mistaken for Infinite is nothing but a Confused Chaos of the Mind or an unshapen Embryo of Thought when men going on further and further and making a Continual Progress without seeing any End before them being at length quite weary and tyred out with this their endless Journey they sit down and call the thing by this Hard and Vnintelligible Name Infinite And from hence does he also infer That because we can have no Idea of Infinite as to signifie any thing in that which is so called we therefore cannot possibly have Germanam Ideam Dei Any True and Genuine Idea or Notion of God Of which they who understand the Language of Atheists know very well the meaning to be this That there is indeed No such thing or That he is a Non-Entity Now since this Exception against the Idea of God and consequently his Existence is made by our Modern and Neoterick Atheists we shall in the first place shew how Contradictious they are herein to their Predecessors the Old Philosophick Atheists and consequently how inconsistent and disagreeing Atheists in several Ages have been with one another For whereas these Modern Atheists would have this thought a sufficient Confutation of a Deity That there can be Nothing Infinite it is certain that the Ancient Philosophick Atheists were so far from being of this Perswasion that some of them as Anaximander expresly made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Infinite the Principle of all things that is Infinitely Extended and Eternal Matter devoid of all Life and Vnderstanding For though Melissus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Infinite which he made the The First Principle was a Most Perfect Being Eminently containing all things as hath been already shewed and therefore the True Deity yet Anaximander's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Infinite however called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine by him it being the only Divinity which he acknowledged was nothing but Sensless Matter an Atheistick Infinite Wherefore both Theists and Atheists in those former times did very well agree together in this One Point that there was Something or other Infinite as the First Principle of all things either Infinite Mind or Infinite Matter though this latter Atheistick Infinity of Extended Matter be indeed repugnant to Conception as shall be proved afterwards there being no True Infinite but a Perfect Being or the Holy Trinity Furthermore not only Anaximander but also after him Democritus and Epicurus and many others of that Atheistick Gang heretofore asserted likewise a Numerical Infinity of Worlds and
Justice for them or to make us Guilty and Blame-worthy for what we doe Amiss and to Deserve Punishment accordingly Which Three Fundamentals of Religion are Intimated by the Authour to the Hebrews in these Words He that Cometh to God must Believe that He Is and That He is a Rewarder of those who seek him out For to Seek out God here is nothing else but to Seek a Participation of his Image or the Recovery of that Nature and Life of his which we have been Alienated from And these Three Things namely That all things do not Float without a Head and Governour but there is an Omnipotent Understanding Being Presiding over all That this God hath an Essentiall Goodness and Justice and That the Differences of Good and Evil Morall Honest and Dishonest are not by meer Will and Law onely but by Nature and consequently That the Deity cannot Act Influence and Necessitate men to such things as are in their Own Nature Evil and Lastly That Necessity is not Intrinsecall to the Nature of every thing But that men have such a Liberty or Power over their own Actions as may render them Accountable for the same and Blame-worthy when they doe Amiss and consequently That there is a Justice Distributive of Rewards and Punishments running through the World I say These Three which are the most Important Things that the Mind of man can employ it self upon taken all together make up the Wholeness and Entireness of that which is here called by us The True Intellectual System of the Universe in such a Sense as Atheism may be called a False System thereof The Word Intellectual being added to distinguish it from the other Vulgarly so called Systems of the World that is the Visible and Corporeal World the Ptolemaick Tychonick and Copernican the Two Former of which are now commonly accounted False the Latter True And thus our Prospect being now Enlarged into a Threefold Fatalism or Spurious and False Hypothesis of the Intellectual System making all things Necessary upon several Grounds We accordingly Designed the Confutation of them all in Three Several Books The First Against Atheism which is the Democritick Fate wherein all the Reason and Philosophy thereof is Refelled and the Existence of a God Demonstrated and so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Material Necessity of all things Overthrown The Second For such a God as is not meer Arbitrary Will Omnipotent Decreeing Doing and Necessitating all Actions Evil as well as Good but Essentially Moral Good and Just and For a Natural Discrimen Honestorum Turpium whereby another Ground of the Necessity of all Humane Actions will be Removed And the Third and Last Against Necessity Intrinsecall and Essentiall to all Action and for such a Liberty or Sui-Potestas in Rational Creatures as may render them Accountable capable of Rewards and Punishments and so Objects of Distributive or Retributive Justice by which the now onely remaining Ground of the Fatal Necessity of all Actions and Events will be Taken away And all these Three under that One General Title of The True Intellectual System of the Universe Each Book having besides it s own Particular Title as Against Atheism For Natural Justice and Morality Founded in the Deity For Liberty from Necessity and a Distributive Justice of Rewards and Punishments in the World And this we conceive may fully satisfy concerning our General Title all those who are not extremely Criticall or Captious at least as many of them as have ever heard of the Astronomical Systems of the World so that they will not think us hereby Obliged to Treat of the Hierarchy of Angels and of all the Several Species of Animals Vegetables and Minerals c. that is to write De Omni Ente of whatsoever is Contained within The Complexion of the Universe Though the Whole Scale of Entity is here also taken notice of and the General Ranks of Substantiall Beings below the Deity or Trinity of Divine Hypostases Consider'd which yet according to our Philosophy are but Two Souls of several Degrees Angels themselves being included within that Number and Body or Matter as also the Immortality of those Souls Proved Which notwithstanding is Suggested by us onely to Satisfy some mens Curiosity Nevertheless we confess that this General Title might well have been here spared by us and this Volume have been Presented to the Reader 's View not as a Part or Piece but a Whole Compleat and Entire thing by it self had it not been for Two Reasons First Our beginning with those Three Fatalisms or False Hypotheses of the Intellectual System and Promising a Confutation of them all then when we thought to have brought them within the Compass of One Volume and Secondly Every other Page's throughout this whole Volume accordingly bearing the Inscription of Book the First upon the Head thereof This is therefore that which in the First place we here Apologize for our Publishing One Part or Book alone by it self We being surprized in the Length thereof Whereas we had otherwise Intended Two more along with it Notwithstanding which there is no Reason why this Volume should therefore be thought Imperfect and Incomplete because it hath not All the Three Things at first Designed by us it containing All that belongeth to its own Particular Title and Subject and being in that respect no Piece but a Whole This indeed must needs beget an Expectation of the Two following Treatises especially in such as shall have receiv'd any Satisfaction from this First concerning those Two other Fatalisms or False Hypotheses mentioned to make up our Whole Intellectual System Compleat The One to Prove That God is not meer Arbitrary Will Omnipotent without any Essential Goodness and Justice Decreeing and Doing all things in the World as well Evil as Good and thereby making them alike Necessary to us from whence it would follow that all Good and Evil Moral are meer Thetical Positive and Arbitrary things that is not Nature but Will Which is the Defence of Natural Eternal and Immutable Justice or Morality The Other That Necessity is not Intrinsecal to the Nature of Every thing God and all Creatures or Essentiall to all Action but That there is Something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or That we have some Liberty or Power over our own Actions Which is the Defence of a Distributive or Retributive Justice dispensing Rewards and Punishments throughout the whole VVorld VVherefore we think fit here to advertize the Reader concerning these That though they were and still are really intended by us yet the Compleat Finishing and Publication of them will notwithstanding depend upon many Contingencies not onely of our Life and Health the Latter of which as well as the Former is to us very Vncertain but also of our Leisure or Vacancy from other Necessary Employments In the next place VVe must Apologize also for the Fourth Chapter inasmuch as thâ—ugh in regard of its Length it might rather be called a Book then a Chapter
by making such Analogical Interpretations as they use to do in Augury As when a Bird flies high to interpret this of some High and Noble Exploit And Simplicius in like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fatal Conversion of the Heavens is made to correspond with the Production of Souls into Generation at such and such times not Necessitating them to will this or that but conspiring agreeably with such Appetites and Volitions of theirs And these Philosophers were the rather inclinable to this Perswasion from a Superstitious Conceit which they had that the Stars being animated were Intellectual Beings of a far higher Rank than Men. And since God did not make them nor any thing else in the World singly for themselves alone but also to contribute to the Publick Good of the Universe their Physical Influence seeming inconsiderable they knew not well what else could be worthy of them unless it were to portend Humane Events This indeed is the best Sence that can be made of Astrological Prognostication But it is a business that stands upon a very weak and tottering if not Impossible Foundation III. There is another Wild and Extravagant Conceit which some of the Pagans had who though they Verbally acknowledged a Deity yet supposed a certain Fate superiour to it and not only to all their other Petty Gods but also to Jupiter himself To which purpose is that of the Greek Poet Latin'd by Cicero Quod fore paratum est id summum exuperat Jovem and that of Herodotus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is impossible for God himself to avoid the destin'd Fate and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God himself is a Servant of Necessity According to which Conceit Jupiter in Homer laments his Condition in that the Fates having determined that his beloved Sarpedon should be slain by the Son of Menaetius he was not able to withstand it Though all these passages may not perhaps imply much more than what the Stoical Hypothesis it self imported for that did also in some sence make God himself a Servant to the Necessity of the Matter and to his own Decrees in that he could not have made the smallest thing in the World otherwise than now it is much less was able to alter any thing According to that of Seneca Eadem Necessitas Deos alligat Irrevocabilis Divina pariter atque Humana cursus vehit Ille ipse omnium Conditor ac Rector scripsit quidem Fata sed sequitur Semper paret semel jussit One and the same Chain of Necessity ties God and Men. The same irrevocable and unalterable Course carries on Divine and Humane things The very Maker and Governour of all things that writ the Fates follows them He did but once command but he always obeys But if there were this further meaning in the Passages before cited that a Necessity without God that was invincible by him did determine his Will to all things this was nothing but a certain Confused and Contradictious Jumble of Atheism and Theism both together or an odd kind of Intimation that however the Name of God be used in compliance with Vulgar Speech and Opinion yet indeed it signifies nothing but Material Necessity and the blind Motion of Matter is really the Highest Numen in the World And here that of Balbus the Stoick in Cicero is opportune Non est Natura Dei Praepotens Excellens siquidem ea subjecta est ei vel Necessitati vel Naturae quâ Coelum Maria Terraeque reguntur Nihil autem est praestantius Deo Nulli igitur est Naturae obediens aut subjectus Deus God would not be the most Powerful and Excellent Being if he were subject to that either Necessity or Nature by which the Heavens Seas and Earth are governed But the Notion of a God implies the most Excellent Being Therefore God is not Obedient or Subject to any Nature IV. And now we think fit here to suggest that however we shall oppose those three Fatalisms before mentioned as so many false Hypotheses of the Mundane System and Oeconomy and endeavour to exclude that severe Tyranness as Epicurus calls it of Universal Necessity reigning over all and to leave some Scope for Contingent Liberty to move up and down in without which neither Rational Creatures can be blame worthy for any thing they do nor God have any Object to display his Justice upon nor indeed be justified in his Providence Yet as we vindicate to God the glory of all Good so we do not quite banish the Notion of Fate neither nor take away all Necessity which is a thing the Clazomenian Philosopher of old was taxed for Affirming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Nothing at all was done by Fate but that it was altogether a vain Name And the Sadduceans among the Jews have been noted for the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They take away all Fate and will not allow it to be any thing at all nor to have any Power over Humane Things but put all things entirely into the hands of Mens own Free-Will And some of our own seem to have approached too near to this Extreme attributing perhaps more to the Power of Free-Will than either Religion or Nature will admit But the Hypothesis that we shall recommend as most agreeable to Truth of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Placable Providence of a Deity Essentially Good presiding over all will avoid all Extremes asserting to God the Glory of Good and freeing him from the Blame of Evil and leaving a certain proportionate Contemperation and Commixture of Contingency and Necessity both together in the World As Nature requires a mixture of Motion and Rest without either of which there could be no Generation Which Temper was observed by several of the Ancients as the Pharisaick Sect amongst the Jews who determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That some things and not all were the Effects of Fate but some things were left in Mens own Power and Liberty And also by Plato amongst the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato inserts something of Fate into Humane Lives and Actions and he joyns with it Liberty of Will also He doth indeed suppose Humane Souls to have within themselves the Causes of their own Changes to a Better or Worser State every where declares God to be blameless for their Evils and yet he somewhere makes the three Fatal Sisters notwithstanding Clotho Lachesis and Atropos to be busie about them also For according to the sence of the Ancients Fate is a Servant of Divine Providence in the World and takes place differently upon the different Actings of Free-willed Beings And how Free a thing soever the Will of Man may seem to be to some yet I conceive it to be out of Question that it may contract upon it self such Necessities and Fatalities as it cannot upon a suddain rid it self of at pleasure But whatsoever is said in the Sequel of this Discourse by way of Opposition to that Fatalism of the
expressed by Sanchuniathon in his Description of the Phoenician Theology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Turbid and Dark Chaos and the Second is intimated in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spirit was affected with love towards its own Principles perhaps expressing the Force of the Hebrew word Merachepheth and both of them implyng an Understanding Prolifical Goodness Forming and Hatching the Corporeal World into this perfection or else a Plastick Power subordinate to it Zeno who was also originally a Phoenician tells us that Hesiod's Chaos was Water and that the Material Heaven as well as Earth was made out of Water according to the Judgment of the best Interpeters is the genuine sence of Scripture 2 Pet. 3.5 by which water some perhaps would understand a Chaos of Atoms confusedly moved But whether Thales were acquainted with the Atomical Physiology or no it is plain that he asserted besides the Soul's Immortality a Deity distinct from the Corporeal World We pass to Pythagoras whom we have proved already to have been an Atomist and it is well known also that he was a professed Incorporealist That he asserted the Immortality of the Soul and consequently its Immateriality is evident from his Doctrine of Pre-existence and Transmigration And that he likewise held an Incorporeal Deity distinct from the World is a thing not questioned by any But if there were any need of proving it because there are no Monuments of his Extant perhaps it might be done from hence because he was the chief Propagator of that Doctrine amongst the Greeks concerning Three Hypostases in the Deity For that Plato and his Followers held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostases in the Deity that were the first Principles of all things is a thing very well known to all Though we do not affirm that these Platonick Hypostases are exactly the same with those in the Christian Trinity Now Plato himself sufficiently intimates this not to have been his own Invention and Plotinus tells us that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Ancient Opinion before Plato's time which had been delivered down by some of the Pythagoricks Wherefore I conceive this must needs be one of those Pythagorick Monstrosities which Xenophon covertly taxes Plato for entertaining and mingling with the Socratical Philosophy as if he had thereby corrupted the Purity and Simplicity of it Though a Corporealist may pretend to be a Theist yet I never heard that any of them did ever assert a Trinity respectively to the Deity unless it were such an one as I think not fit here to mention XXIII That Parmenides who was likewise a Pythagorean acknowledged a Deity distinct from the Corporeal World is evident from Plato And Plotinus tells us also that he was one of them that asserted the Triad of Divine Hypostases Moreover whereas there was a great Controversie amongst the Ancient Philosophers before Plato's time between such as held all things to Flow as namely Heraclitus and Cratylus and others who asserted that some things did Stand and that there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a certain Immutable Nature to wit an Eternal Mind together with Eternal and Immutable Truths amongst which were Parmenides and Melissus the former of these were all Corporealists this being the very Reason why they made all things to Flow because they supposed all to be Body though these were not therefore all of them Atheists But the latter were all both Incorporealists and Theists for whosoever holds Incorporeal Substance must needs according to Reason also assert a Deity And although we did not before paticularly mention Parmenides amongst the Atomical Philosophers yet we conceive it to be manifest from hence that he was one of that Tribe because he was an eminent Asserter of that Principle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That no Real Entity is either Made or Destroyed Generated or Corrupted Which we shall afterwards plainly shew to be the grand Fundamental Principle of the Atomical Philosophy XXIV But whereas we did evidently prove before that Empedocles was an Atomical Physiologer it may notwithstanding with some Colour of Probability be doubted whether he were not an Atheist or at least a Corporealist because Aristotle accuses him of these following things First of making Knowledge to be Sense which is indeed a plain sign of a Corporealist and therefore in the next place also of compounding the Soul out of the four Elements making it to understand every corporeal thing by something of the same within it self as Fire by Fire and Earth by Earth and Lastly of attributing much to Fortune and affirming that divers of the Parts of Animals were made such by chance and that there were at first certain Mongrel Animals fortuitously produced that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as had something of the shape of an Oxe together with the Face of a Man though they could not long continue which seems to give just Cause of Suspicion that Empedocles Atheized in the same manner that Democritus did To the first of these we reply that some others who had also read Empedocles's Poems were of a different Judgment from Aristotle as to that conceiving Empedocles not to make Sense but Reason the Criterion of Truth Thus Empiricus informs us Others say that according to Empedocles the Criterion of Truth is not Sense but Right Reason and also that Right Reason is of two sorts the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Humane Of which the Divine is inexpressible but the Humane declarable And there might be several Passages cited out of those Fragments of Empedocles his Poems yet left to confirm this but we shall produce only this one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this Sence Suspend thy Assent to the Corporeal Senses and consider every thing clearly with thy Mind or Reason And as to the Second Crimination Aristotle has much weakened his own Testimony here by accusing Plato also of the very same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato compounds the Soul out of the four Elements because Like is known by Like and things are from their Principles Wherefore it is probable that Empedocles might be no more guilty of this fault of making the Soul Corporeal and to consist of Earth Water Air and Fire than Plato was who in all mens Judgments was as free from it as Aristotle himself if not more For Empedocles did in the same manner as Pythagoras before him and Plato after him hold the Transmigration of Souls and consequently both their Future Immortality and Preexistence and therefore must needs assert their Incorporeity Plutarch rightly declaring this to have been his Opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That as well those who are yet Vnborn as those that are Dead have a Being He also asserted Humane Souls to be here in a Lapsed State 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wanderers Strangers and Fugitives from God declaring as Plotinus tells us that it was a Divine Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Souls sinning should
were before Democritus and Lencippus were all of them Incorporealists joyning Theology and Pneumatology the Doctrine of Incorporeal Substance and a Deity together with their Atomical Physiology This is a thing expresly noted concerning Ecphantus the Pythagorean in Stobaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecphantus held the Corporeal World to consist of Atoms but yet to be Ordered and Governed by a Divine Providence that is he joyned Atomology and Theology both together And the same is also observed of Arcesilas or perhaps Archelaus by Sidonius Apollinaris Post hos Arcesilaus Divinâ Mente paratam Conjicit hanc Molem confectam Partibus illis Quas Atomos vocat ipse leves Now I say as Ecphantus and Archelaus asserted the Corporeal World to be made of Atoms but yet notwithstanding held an Incorporeal Deity distinct from the same as the First Principle of Activity in it so in like manner did all the other ancient Atomists generally before Democritus joyn Theology and Incorporealism with their Atomical Physiology They did Atomize as well as he but they did not Atheize but that Atheistical Atomology was a thing first set on foot afterward by Leucippus and Democritus XXVII But because many seem to be so strongly possessed with this Prejudice as if Atheism were a Natural and Necessary Appendix to Atomism and therefore will conclude that the same persons could not possibly be Atomists and Incorporealists or Theists we shall further make it Evident that there is not only no Inconsistency betwixt the Atomical Physiology and Theology but also that there is on the Contrary a most Natural Cognation between them And this we shall do two manner of ways First by inquiring into the Origin of this Philosophy and considering what Grounds or Principles of Reason they were which first led the Antients into this Atomical or Mechanical way of Physiologizing And Secondly by making it appear that the Intrinsecal Constitution of this Physiology is such that whosoever entertains it if he do but thoroughly understand it must of necessity acknowledge that there is something else in the World besides Body First therefore this Atomical Physiology seems to have had its Rise and Origin from the Strength of Reason exerting its own Inward Active Power and Vigour and thereby bearing it self up against the Prejudices of Sense and at length prevailing over them after this manner The Ancients considering and revolving the Idea's of their own Minds found that they had a clear and distinct Conception of Two things as the General Heads and Principles of whatsoever was in the Universe the one whereof was Passive Matter and the other Active Power Vigour and Vertue To the Latter of which belongs both Cogitation and the Power of Moving Matter whether by express Consciousness or no. Both which together may be called by one General Name of Life so that they made these two General Heads of Being or Entity Passive Matter or Bulk and Self Activity or Life The Former of these was commonly called by the Ancients the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which suffers and receives and the Latter the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Active Principle and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that from whence Motion Springs In rerum Natura saith Cicero according to the General Sence of the Ancients Duo quaerenda sunt Vnum quae Materia sit ex qua quaeque res efficiatâ—â— Alterum quae res sit quae quicque Efficiat There are two things to be enquired after in Nature One what is the Matter out of which every thing is made Another what is the Active Cause or Efficient To the same purpose Seneca Esse debet aliquid Vnde siat deinde à Quo fiat hoc est Causa illud Materia There must be something Out of which a thing is made and then something By which it is made the Latter is properly the Cause and the Former the Matter Which is to be understood of Corporeal things and their Differences that there must be both Matter and an Active Power for the production of them And so also that of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That from whence the Principle of Motion is is one Cause and the Matter is another Where Aristotle gives that name of Cause to the Matter also though others did appropriate it to the Active Power And the Writer de Placitis Philosophorum expresses this as the General Sence of the Ancients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is impossible that Matter alone should be the sole Principle of all things but there must of necessity be supposed also an Agent or Efficient Cause As Silver alone is not sufficient to make a Cup unless there be an Artificer to work upon it And the same is to be said concerning Brass Wood and other Natural Bodies Now as they apprehended a Necessity of these two Principles so they conceived them to be such as could not be confounded together into one and the same Thing or Substance they having such distinct Idea's and Essential Characters from one another The Stoicks being the only Persons who offering Violence to their own apprehensions rudely and unskilfully attempted to make these two distinct things to be one and the same Substance Wherefore as the First of these viz. Matter or Passive Extended Bulk is taken by all for Substance and commonly called by the name of Body so the other which is far the more Noble of the Two being that which acts upon the matter and hath a Commanding Power over it must needs be Substance too of a different kind from Matter or Body and therefore Immaterial or Incorporeal Substance Neither did they find any other Entity to be conceivable besides these two Passive Bulk or Extension which is Corporeal Substance and Internal Self-Activity or Life which is the Essential Character of Substance Incorporeal to which Latter belongs not only Cogitation but also the Power of Moving Body Moreover when they further considered the First of these the Material or Corporeal Principle they being not able clearly to conceive any thing else in it besides Magnitude Figure Site and Motion or Rest which are all several Modes of Extended Bulk concluded therefore according to Reason that there was Really nothing else existing in Bodies without besides the various Complexions and Conjugations of those Simple Elements that is nothing but Mechanism Whence it necessarily followed that whatsoever else was supposed to be in Bodies was indeed nothing but our Modes of Sensation or the Phancies and Passions in us begotten from them mistaken for things really existing without us And this is a thing so obvious that some of those Philosophers who had taken little notice of the Atomical Physiology had notwithstanding a suspicion of it as for Example Plotinus who writing of the Criterion of Truth and the power of Reason hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though the things of Sense seem to have so clear a Certainty yet notwithstanding it is doubted concerning them whether the Qualities of them
it self Real Entities and Substances are not Generated and Corrupted but only Modifications Wherefore these Ancients apprehended that there was a great difference betwixt the Souls of Men and Animals and the Forms and Qualities of other inanimate Bodies and consequently betwixt their several Productions Forasmuch as in the Generation of Inanimate Bodies there is no new real Entity acquired distinct from the Substance of the thing it self but only a peculiar Modification of it The Form of Stone or of Timber of Blood Flesh and Bone and such other Natural Bodies Generated is no more a distinct Substance or Entity from the Matter than the Form of an House Stool or Table is There is no more new Entity acquired in the Generation of Natural Bodies than there is in the Production of Artificial ones When Water is turn'd into Vapour Candle into Flame Flame into Smoak Grass into Milk Blood and Bones there is no more miraculous Production of Something out of Nothing than when Wool is made into cloth or Flax into Linnen when a rude and Unpolish'd Stone is hewen into a beautiful Statue when Brick Timber and Mortar that lay together before disorderly is brought into the Form of a stately Palace there being Nothing neither in one nor other of these but only a different Disposition and Modification of preexistent Matter Which Matter of the Universe is alwaies Substantially the same and neither more nor less but only Proteanly transformed into different Shapes Thus we see that the Generation of all Inanimate Bodies is nothing but the change of Accidents and Modifications the Substance being really the same both before and after But in the Generations of Men and Animals besides the new disposition of the Parts of Matter and its Organization there is also the Acquisition and Conjunction of another Real Entity or Substance distinct from the Matter which could not be Generated out of it but must needs come into it some other way Though there be no Substantial difference between a Stately House or Palace standing and all the Materials of the same ruinated and demolished but only a difference of Accidents and Modifications yet between a living Man and a dead Carcase there is besides the Accidental Modification of the Body another Substantial difference there being a Substantial Soul and Incorporeal Inhabitant dwelling in the one and acting of it which the other is now deserted of And it is very observable that Anaxagoras himself who made Bony and Fleshy Atoms Hot and Cold Red and Green and the like which he supposed to exist before Generations and after Corruptions alwaies immutably the same that so Nothing might come from Nothing and go to Nothing yet he did not make any Animalish Atoms Sensitive and Rational The Reason whereof could not be because he did not think Sense and Understanding to be as Real Entities as Hot and Cold Red and Green but because they could not be supposed to be Corporeal Forms and Qualities but must needs belong to another Substance that was Incorporeal And therefore Anaxagoras could not but acknowledge that all Souls and Lives did Prae and Post-exist by themselves as well as those Corporeal Forms and Qualities in his Similar Atoms XXX And now it is already manifest that from the same Principle of Reason before mentioned That Nothing of it self can come from Nothing nor go to Nothing the Ancient Philosophers were induced likewise to assert the Soul's Immortality together with its Incorporeity or Distinctness from the Body No substantial Entity ever vanisheth of it self into Nothing for if it did then in length of time all might come to be Nothing But the Soul is a Substantial Entity Really distinct from the body and not the mere Modification of it and therefore when a Man dies his Soul must still remain and continue to have a Being somewhere else in the Universe All the Changes that are in Nature are either Accidental Transformations and different Modifications of the same Substance or else they are Conjunctions and Separations or Anagrammatical Transpositions of things in the Universe the Substance of the whole remaining alwaies entirely the same The Generation and Corruption of Inanimate Bodies is but like the making of a House Stool or Table and the Unmaking or Marring of them again either different Modifications of one and the same Substance or else divers Mixtures and Separations Concretions and Secretions And the Generation and Corruption of Animals is likewise nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Conjunction of Souls together with such Particular Bodies and the Separation of them again from one another and so as it were the Anagrammatical Transposition of them in the Universe That Soul and Life that is now fled and gone from a lifeless Carcase is only a loss to that particular Body or Compages of Matter which by means thereof is now disanimated but it is no loss to the whole it being but Transposed in the Universe and lodged somewhere else XXXI It is also further evident that this same Principle which thus led the Ancients to hold the Souls Immortality or its Future Permanency after Death must needs determine them likewise to maintain its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Preexistence and consequently its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transmigration For that which did preexist before the Generation of any Animal and was then somewhere else must needs Transmigrate into the Body of that Animal where now it is But as for that other Transmigration of Human Souls into the Bodies of Brutes though it cannot be denied but that many of these Ancients admitted it also yet Timaeus Locrus and divers others of the Pythagoreans rejected it any otherwise than as it might be taken for an Allegorical Description of that Beastly Transformation that is made of Mens Souls by Vice Aristotle tells us again agreeably to what was declared before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Ancient Philosophers were afraid of Nothing more than this one thing that any thing should be made out of Nothing Preexistent And therefore they must needs conclude that the Souls of all Animals Preexisted before their Generations And indeed it is a thing very well known that according to the Sence of Philosophers these two things were alwaies included together in that one opinion of the Soul's Immortality namely its Preexistence as well as its Postexistence Neither was there ever any of the Ancients before Christianity that held the Souls future Permanency after Death who did not likewise assert its Preexistence they clearly perceiving that if it were once granted that the Soul was Generated it could never be proved but that it might be also Corrupted And therefore the Assertors of the Souls Immortality commonly begun here first to prove its Pre-existence proceeding thence afterward to establish its Permanency after Death This is the Method used in Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Soul was somewhere before it came to exist in this present Humane Form and from thence it appears to
That Corporeal things could not be apprehended by us otherwise than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Sense and a kind of Spurious or Bastardly Reason that is that we could have no clear Conceptions of them in our Understanding And for the same reason Plato him-himself distinguisheth betwixt such things as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Comprehensible by the Vnderstanding with Reason and those which are only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which can only be apprehended by Opinion together with a certain Irrational Sence meaning plainly by the Latter Corporeal and Sensible things And accordingly the Platonists frequently take occasion from hence to enlarge themselves much in the disparagement of Corporeal things as being by Reason of that smallness of Entity that is in them below the Understanding and not having so much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence as Generation which indeed is Fine Phancie Wherefore we must either with these Philosophers make Sensible things to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 altogether Incomprehensible and Inconceivable by our Humane Understandings though they be able in the mean time clearly to conceive many things of a higher Nature or else we must entertain some kind of favourable Opinion concerning that which is the Ancientest of all Physiologies the Atomical or Mechanical which alone renders Sensible things Intelligible XL. The Second Advantage which this Atomical Physiology seems to have is this That it prepares an easie and clear way for the Demonstration of Incorporeal Substances by setling a Distinct Notion of Body He that will undertake to prove that there is something else in the World besides Body must first determine what Body is for otherwise he will go about to prove that there is something besides He-knows-not-what But now if all Body be made to consist of two Substantial Principles whereof one is Matter devoid of all Form and therefore of Quantity as well as Qualities from whence these Philosophers themselves conclude that it is Incorporeal the other Form which being devoid of all Matter must needs be Incorporeal likewise And thus Stobaeus sets down the joint Doctrine both of Plato and Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That in the same manner as Form alone separated from Matter is Incorporeal so neither is Matter alone the Form being separated from it Body But there is need of the joint concurrence of both these Matter and Form together to make up the Substance of Body Moreover if to Forms Qualities be likewise superadded of which it is consentaneously also resolved by the Platonists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Qualities are Incorporeal as if they were so many Spirits possessing Bodies I say in this way of Philosophizing the Notions of Body and Spirit Corporeal and Incorporeal are so confounded that it is Impossible to prove any thing at all concerning them Body it self being made Incorporeal and therefore every thing Incorporeal for whatsoever is wholly compounded and made up of Incorporeals must needs be it self also Incorporeal Furthermore according to this Doctrine of Matter Forms and Qualities in Body Life and Vnderstanding may be supposed to be certain Forms or Qualities of Body And then the Souls of men may be nothing else but Blood or Brains endued with the Qualities of Sense and Understanding or else some other more Subtle Sensitive and Rational Matter in us And the like may be said of God himself also That he is nothing but a certain Rational or Intellectual Subtle and Firie Body pervading the whole Universe or else that he is the Form of the whole Corporeal World together with the Matter making up but one Substance Which Conceits have been formerly entertained by the best of those Ancients who were captivated under that dark Infirmity of mind to think that there could be no other Substance besides Body But the ancient Atomical Philosophy setling a distinct Notion of Body that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Thing Impenetrably extended which hath nothing belonging to it but Magnitude Figure Site Rest and Motion without any Self-moving Power takes away all Confusion shews clearly how far Body can go where Incorporeal Substance begins as also that there must of necessity be such a Thing in the World Again this discovering not only that the Doctrine of Qualities had its Original from mens mistaking their own Phancies for Absolute Realities in Bodies themselves but also that the Doctrine of Matter and Form Sprung from another Fallacy or Deception of the Mind in taking Logical Notions and our Modes of Conceiving for Modes of Being and Real Entities in things without us It shewing likewise that because there is nothing else clearly intelligible in Body besides Magnitude Figure Site and Motion and their various Conjugations there can be no such Entities of Forms and Qualities really distinct from the Substance of Body makes it evident that Life Cogitation and Vnderstanding can be no Corporeal things but must needs be the Attributes of another kind of Substance distinct from Body XLI We have now clearly proved these two things First that the Physiology of the Ancients before not only Aristotle and Plato but also Democritus and Leucippus was Atomical or Mechanical Secondly that as there is no Inconsistency between the Atomical Physiology and Theology but indeed a Natural Cognation so the Ancient Atomists before Democritus were neither Atheists nor Corporealists but held the Incorporeity and Immortality of Souls together with a Deity distinct from the Corporeal World Wherefore the First and most Ancient Atomists did not make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they never endeavoured to make up an Entire Philosophy out of Atomology but the Doctrine of Atoms was to them onely one Part or Member of the whole Philosophick System they joining thereunto the Doctrine of Incorporeal Substance and Theology to make it up complete Accordingly as Aristotle hath declared in his Metaphysicks that the Ancient Philosophy consisted of these two Parts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Physiology and Theology or Metaphysicks Our Ancient Atomists never went about as the blundering Democritus afterwards did to build up a World out of mere Passive Bulk and Sluggish Matter without any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Active Principles or Incorporeal Powers understanding well that thus they could not have so much as Motion Mechanism or Generation in it the Original of all that Motion that is in Bodies springing from something that is not Body that is from Incorporeal Substance And yet if Local Motion could have been supposed to have risen up or sprung in upon this Dead Lump and Mass of Matter no body knows how and without dependance upon any Incorporeal Being to have Actuated it Fortuitously these Ancient Atomists would still have thought it Impossible for the Corporeal World it self to be made up such as now it is by Fortuitous Mechanism without the Guidance of any higher Principle But they would have concluded
are chiefly these that follow First That we have no Idaea of God and therefore can have no Evidence of him which Argument is further flourisht and descanted upon in this manner That Notion or Conception of a Deity that is commonly entertained is nothing but a Bundle of Incomprehensibles Unconceivables and Impossibles it being only a compilement of all Imaginable Attributes of Honour Courtship and Complement which the Confounded Fear and Astonishment of Mens minds made them huddle up together without any Sence or Philosophick Truth This seems to be intimated by a Modern Writer in these words The Attributes of God signifie not True nor False nor any Opinion of our Brain but the Reverence and Devotion of our Hearts and therefore they are not sufficient Premisses to inferr Truth or convince Falshood And the same thing again is further set out with no small pretence to wit after this manner They that venture to dispute Philosophically or reason of God's Nature from these Attributes of Honour losing their Vnderstanding in the very first attempt fall from one Inconvenience into another without end and without number In the same manner as when one ignorant of the Ceremonies of Court coming into the presence of a greater Person than he is used to speak to and stumbling at his Entrance to save himself from falling lets slip his Cloak to recover his Cloak le ts fall his Hat and with one disorder after another discovers his Astonishment and Rusticity The meaning of which and other like passages of the same Writer seem to be this That the Attributes of God by which his Nature is supposed to be expressed having no Philosophick Truth or Reality in them had their only Original from a certain Rustick Astonishment of Mind proceeding from excess of Fear raising up the Phantasm of a Deity as a Bug-bear for an Object to it self and affrighting men into all manner of Confounded Non-sense and Absurdity of Expressions concerning it such as have no signification nor any Conception of the Mind answering to them This is the First Argument used especially by our modern Democriticks against a Deity That because they can have no Phantastick Idaea of it nor fully comprehend all that is included in the Notion thereof that therefore it is but an Incomprehensible Nothing VI. Secondly Another Argument much insisted on by the old Democritick Atheists is directed against the Divine Omnipotence and Creative Power after this manner By God is always understood a Creatour of something or other out of Nothing For however the Theists be here divided amongst themselves Some of them believing that there was once Nothing at all existing in this whole Space which is now occupied by the World besides the Deity and that he was then a Solitary Being so that the Substance of the whole Corporeal Universe had a Temporary Beginning and Novity of Existence and the Duration of it hath now continued but for so many years only Others perswading themselves that though the Matter and Substance at least if not the Form also of the Corporeal World did exist from Eternity yet nevertheless they both alike proceeded from the Deity by way of Emanation and do continually depend upon it in the same manner as Light though coeve with the Sun yet proceeded from the Sun and depends upon it being always as it were Made A-new by it Wherefore according to this Hypothesis though things had no Antecedent Non-Entity in Time yet they were as little of themselves and owed all their Being as much to the Deity as if they had been once Actually Nothing they being as it were perpetually Created out of Nothing by it Lastly Others of those Theists resolving that the Matter of the Corporeal Universe was not only from Eternity but also Self-existent and Uncreated or Independent upon any Deity as to its Being But yet the Forms and Qualities of all Inanimate Bodies together with the Souls of all Animals in the successive Generations of them being taken for Entities distinct from the Matter were Created by the Deity out of Nothing We say though there be such Difference amongst the Theists themselves yet they all agree in this that God is in some Sence or other the Creatour of some Real Entity out of Nothing or the Cause of that which otherwise would not have been Of it self so that no Creation out of Nothing in that enlarged sence no Deity Now it is utterly impossible that any Substance or Real Entity should be Created out of Nothing it being Contradictious to that indubitable Axiom of Reason De Nihilo Nihil From Nothing Nothing The Argument is thus urged by Lucretius according to the Minds of Epicurus and Democritus Principium hinc cujus nobis Exordia sumet Nullam rem è Nihilo gigni Divinitùs unquam Quippe ità Formido Mortales continet omnes Quòd multa in Terris fieri Coelóque tuentur Quorum operum Causas nullâ ratione videre Possunt ac fieri Divino Numine rentur Quas ob res ubi viderimus Nil posse Creari De Nihilo tum quodsequimur jam tutiùs indè Perspiciemus undè queat res quaeque Creari Et quo quaeque modo fiant opera sine Divûm It is true indeed that it seems to be chiefly level'd by the Poet against that Third and last sort of Theists before mentioned such as Heraclitus and the Stoicks which latter were Contemporary with Epicurus who held the Matter of the whole World to have been from Eternity of it self Uncreated but yet the Forms of Mundane things in the successive Generations of them as Entities distinct from the Matter to be Created or made by the Deity out of Nothing But the force of the Argument must needs lie stronger against those other Theists who would have the very Substance and Matter it self of the World as well as the Forms to have been created by the Deity out of Nothing Since Nothing can come out of Nothing it follows that not so much as the Forms and Qualities of Bodies conceiv'd as Entities really distinct from the Matter much less the Lives and Souls of Animals could ever have been Created by any Deity and therefore certainly not the Substance and Matter it self But all Substance and Real Entity whatsoever is in the World must needs have been from Eternity Uncreated and Self-existent Nothing can be Made or Produced but only the different Modifications of Preexistent Matter And this is done by Motions Mixtures and Separations Concretions and Secretions of Atoms without the Creation of any Real distinct Entity out of Nothing so that there needs no Deity for the Effecting of it according to that of Epicurus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No Divine Power ought to be call'd in for the salving of those Phaenomena To Conclude therefore If no Substance nor Real Entity can be made which was not before but all whatsoever Is Will be and Can be was from Eternity Self-existent then Creative Power but especially that Attribute
Existent The Conclusion therefore is that no Animal no Living Understanding Body can be Absolutely and Essentially Incorruptible this being an Incommunicable Property of the Matter and therefore there can can be no Corporeal Deity the Original of all things Essentially Undestroyable Though the Stoicks imagined the whole Corporeal Universe to be an Animal or Deity yet this Corporeal God of theirs was only by Accident Incorruptible and Immortal because they supposed that there was no other Matter which existing without this World and making Inrodes upon it could disunite the Parts of it or disorder its Compages Which if there were the Life and Understanding of this Stoical God or great Mundane Animal as well as that of other Animals in like Cases must needs vanish into nothing Thus from the Principles of Corporealism it self it plainly follows that there can be no Corporeal Deity because the Deity is supposed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing that was never made and is Essentially Undestroyable which are the Privileges and Properties of nothing but Senseless Matter X. In the next place the Atheists undertake more effectually to confute that Corporeal God of the Stoicks and others from the Principles of the Atomical Philosophy in this manner All Corporeal Theists who assert that an Understanding Nature or Mind residing in the Matter of the whole Universe was the first Original of the Mundane System and did Intellectually frame it betray no small Ignorance of Philosophy and the Nature of Body in supposing Real Qualities besides Magnitude Figure Site and Motion as Simple and Primitive things to belong to it and that there was such a Quality or Faculty of Understanding in the Matter of the whole Universe coeternal with the same that was an Original thing Uncompounded and Underived from any thing else Now to suppose such Original Qualities and Powers which are Really Distinct from the Substance of Extended Matter and its Modifications of Divisibility Figure Site and Motion is Really to suppose so many Distinct Substances which therefore must needs be Incorporeal So that these Philosophers fall unawares into that very thing which they are so abhorrent from For this Quality or Faculty of Understanding in the Matter of the Universe Original and underiv'd from any other thing can be indeed nothing else but an Incorporeal Substance Epicurus suggested a Caution against this Vulgar Mistake concerning Qualities to this purpose Non sic cogitandae sunt Qualitates quasi sint quaedam per se existentes Naturae seu Substantiae siquidem id mente assequi non licet sed solummodo ut varii modi sese habendi Corporis considerandae sunt Body as such hath nothing else belonging to the Nature of it but what is included in the Idaea of Extended Substance Divisibility Figure Site Motion or Rest and the Results from the various Compositions of them causing different Phancies Wherefore as vulgar Philosophers make their first Matter which they cannot well tell what they mean by it because it receives all Qualities to be it self devoid of all Quality So we conclude that Atoms which are really the first Principles of all things have none of those Qualities in them which belong to compounded Bodies they are not absolutely of themselves Black or White Hot or Cold Moist or dry Bitter or Sweet all these things arising up afterwards from the various Aggregations and Contextures of them together with different Motions Which Lucretius confirms by this reason agreeable to the Tenour of the Atomical Philosophy That if there were any such Real Qualities in the first Principles then in the various Corruptions of Nature things would at last be all reduc'd to Nothing Immutabile enim quiddam superare necesse est Nè res ad Nihilum redigantur funditùs omnes Proinde Colore cave contingas semina rerum Nè tibi res redeant ad Nilum funditùs omnes Wherefore he concludes that it must not be thought that White things are made out of White Principles nor Black things out of Black Principles Nè ex Albis Alba rearis Principiis esse Aut ea quae nigrant nigro de semine nata Neve alium quemvis quaesunt induta colorem Proptereà gerere hunc credas quòd materiaï Corpora consimuli sint ejus tincta colore Nullus enim Color est omnino materiaï Corporibus neque par rebus neque denique dispar Adding that the same is to be resolved likewise concerning all other Sensible Qualities as well as Colours Sed nè fortè putes solospoliata colore Corpora prima manere etiam secreta Teporis Sunt ac Frigoris omnino CalidÃque Vaporis Et sonitu sterila Succo jejuna feruntur Nec jaciunt ullum proprio de corpore Odorem Lastly he tells us in like manner that the same is to be understood also concerning Life Sense and Understanding that there are no such simple Qualities or Natures in the first Principles out of which Animals are compounded but that these are in themselves altogether devoid of Life Sense and Understanding Nunc ea quae Sentire videmus cunque necesse ' st Ex Insensilibus tamen omnia confiteare Principiis constare neque id manifesta refutant Sed magìs ipsa manu ducunt credere cogunt Ex insensilibus quod dico Animalia gigni Quippe videre licet vivos existere vermes Stercore de tetro putrorem cum sibi nacta ' st Intempestivis ex imbribus humida tellus All Sensitive and Rational Animals are made of Irrational and Senseless Principles which is proved by Experience in that we see Worms are made out of putrified Dung moistned with immoderate Showers Some indeed who are no greater Friends to a Deity than our selves will needs have that Sense and Understanding that is in Animals and Men to be derived from an Antecedent Life and Understanding in the Matter But this cannot be because if Matter as such had Life and Understanding in it then every Atom of Matter must needs be a Distinct Percipient Animal and Intelligent Person by it self and it would be impossible for any such Men and Animals as now are to be compounded out of them because every Man would be Variorum Animalculorum Acervus a Heap of Innumerable Animals and Percipients Wherefore as all the other Qualities of Bodies so likewise Life Sense and Understanding arise from the different Contextures of Atoms devoid of all those Qualities or from the Composition of those simple Elements of Magnitudes Figures Sites and Motions in the same manner as from a few Letters variously compounded all that Infinite Variety of Syllables and Words is made Quin etiam refert nostris in versibus ipsis Cum quibus quali Positurâ contineantur Namque eadem Coelum Mare Terras Flumina Solem Significant eadem fruges arbusta animantes Sic ipsis in rebus item jam materiaï Intervalla viae connexus pondera plagae Concursus motus ordo Positura Figurae Cùm permutantur mutari res quoque
debent From the Fortuitous Concretions of Senseless Vnknowing Atoms did rise up afterwards in certain parts of the World called Animals Soul and Mind Sense and Vnderstanding Counsel and Wisdom But to think that there was any Animalish Nature before all these Animals or that there was an antecedent Mind and Understanding Counsel and Wisdom by which all Animals themselves together with the whole World were made and contrived is either to run round in a Senseless Circle making Animals and Animality to be before one another infinitely or else to suppose an impossible Beginning of an Original Understanding Quality in the Matter Atoms in their first Coalitions together when the World was a making were not then directed by any previous Counsel or preventive Understanding which were things as yet Unborn and Unmade Nam certè neque consilio Primordia rerum Ordine se quaeque atque sagaci mente locârunt Nec quos quaeque darent motus pepigere profectó Mind and Understanding Counsel and Wisdom did not lay the Foundations of the Universe they are no Archical things that is they have not the Nature of a Principle in them they are not Simple Original Primitive and Primordial but as all other Qualities of Bodies Secundary Compounded and Derivative and therefore they could not be Architectonical of the World Mind and Vnderstanding is no God but the Creature of Matter and Motion The sence of this whole Argument is briefly this The first Principle of all things in the whole Universe is Matter or Atoms devoid of all Qualities and consequently of all Life Sense and Understanding and therefore the Original of things is no Understanding Nature or Deity XI Seventhly The Democritick Atheists argue further after this manner They who assert a Deity suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole World to be Animated that is to have a Living Rational and Understanding Nature presiding over it Now it is already evident from some of the premised Arguments that the World cannot be Animated in the sence of Platonists that is with an Incorporeal Soul which is in order of Nature before Body it being proved already that there can be no Substance Incorporeal as likewise that it cannot be Animated neither in the Stoical sence so as to have an Original Quality of Understanding or Mind in the Matter But yet nevertheless some may possibly imagine that as in our selves and other Animals though compounded of Sensless Atoms there is a Soul and Mind resulting from the Contexture of them which being once made domineers over the Body governing and ordering it at pleasure so there may be likewise such a Living Soul and Mind not only in the Stars which many have supposed to be lesser Deities and in the Sun which has been reputed a principal Deity but also in the whole Mundane System made up of Earth Seas Air Ether Sun Moon and Starrs all together one General Soul and Mind which though resulting at first from the Fortuitous Motion of Matter yet being once produced may rule govern and sway the Whole Understandingly and in a more perfect manner than our Souls do our Bodies and so long as it continues exercise a Principality and Dominion over it Which although it will not amount to the full Notion of a God according to the strict sence of Theists yet it will approach very near unto it and indanger the bringing in of all the same Inconveniences along with it Wherefore they will now prove that there is no such Soul or Mind as this resulting from the Contexture of Atoms that presides over the Corporeal Universe that so there may not be so much as the Shadow of a Deity left It was observed before that Life Sense Reason and Understanding are but Qualities of Concreted Bodies like those other Qualities of Heat and Cold c. arising from certain particular Textures of Atoms Now as those first Principles of Bodies namely single Atoms have none of those Qualities in them so neither hath the whole Universe any that it can be denominated from but only the Parts of it The whole World is neither Black nor White Hot nor Cold Pellucid nor Opake it containing all those Qualities in its several Parts In like manner the whole has no Life Sense nor Understanding in it but only the parts of it which are called Animals That is Life and Sense are qualities that arise only from such a Texture of Atoms as produceth soft Flesh Blood and Brains in Bodies organized with Head Heart Bowels Nerves Muscles Veins Arteries and the like Sensus jungitur omnis Visceribus Nervis Venis quaecunque videmus Mollia mortali consistere Corpore creta And Reason and Understanding properly so called are peculiar Appendices to humane Shape Ratio nusquam esse potest nisi in hominis figura From whence it is concluded that there is no Life Soul nor Understanding acting the whole World because the World hath no Blood nor Brains nor any Animalish or Humane Form Qui Mundum ipsum Animantem sapientemque esse dixerunt nullo modo viderunt Animi Naturam in quam Figuram cadere posset Therefore the Epicurean Poet concludes upon this Ground that there is no Divine Sense in the whole World Dispositum videtur ubi esse crescere possit Seorsim Anima atque Animus tanto magis inficiandum Totum posse extra Corpus Formámque Animalem Putribus in glebis terrarum aut Solis in Igni Aut in Aqua durare aut altis Aetheris oris Haud igitur constant Divino praedita Sensu Quandoquidem nequeunt vitaliter esse Animata Now if there be no Life nor Understanding above us nor round about us nor any where else in the World but only in our selves and Fellow-Animals and we be the highest of all Beings if neither the whole Corporeal System be Animated nor those greater parts of it Sun Moon nor Stars then there can be no danger of any Deity XII Eighthly the Democritick Atheists dispute further against a Deity in this manner The Deity is generally supposed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Perfectly Happy Animal Incorruptible and Immortal Now there is no Living Being Incorruptible and Immortal and therefore none perfectly Happy neither For according to that Democritick Hypothesis of Atoms in Vacuity the only Incorruptible things will be These three First of all Vacuum or Empty Space which must needs be such because it cannot suffer from any thing since it is plagarum expers Et manet intactum nec ab ictu fungitur hilum Secondly the Single Atoms because by reason of their Parvitude and Solidity they are Indivisible And lastly the Summa Summarum of all things that is the Comprehension of all Atoms dispersed every where throughout Infinite Space Quia nulla loci stat copia certum Quò quasi res possint discedere dissolüique But according to that other Hypothesis of some modern Atomists which also was entertained of old by Empedocles that supposes a Plenity there is nothing
he had condemned certain of the old Philosophers as Atheistick Corporealists he subjoyns these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But of the other Philosophers who transcending all the Elements searched after some higher and more excellent thing some of them praised Infinite amongst which was Anaximander the Milesian Anaxagoras the Clazomenian and the Athenian Archelaus As if these Three had all alike acknowledged an Incorporeal Deity and made an Infinite Mind distinct from Matter the First Original of all things But that forecited Passage of Aristotle's alone well consider'd will it self afford a sufficient Confutation of this Opinion where Anaximander with those other Physiologers is plainly opposed to Anaxagoras who besides Infinite Sensless Matter or Similar Atoms made Mind to be a Principle of the Vniverse as also to Empedocles who made a Plastick Life and Nature called Friendship another Principle of the Corporeal World from whence it plainly follows that Anaximander and the rest supposed not Infinite Mind but Infinite Matter without either Mind or Plastick Nature to have been the only Original of all things and therefore the Only Deity or Numen Moreover Democritus being linked in the Context with Anaximander as making both of them alike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Infinite to be the First Principle of all it might as well be inferred from this Place that Democritus was a Genuine Theist as Anaximander But as Democritus his only Principle was Infinite Atoms without any thing of Mind or Plastick Nature so likewise was Anaximander's an Infinity of Sensless and Stupid Matter and therefore they were both of them Atheists alike though Anaximander in the cited words had the Honour if it may be so called to be only named as being the most ancient of all those Atheistical Physiologers and the Ringleader of them XXII Neither ought it at all to seem strange that Anaximander and those other Atheistical Materialists should call Infinite Matter devoid of all Vnderstanding and Life the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Deity or Numen since to all those who deny a God according to the true Notion of him whatsoever else they substitute in his room by making it the First Principle of all things though it be Sensless and Stupid Matter yet this must needs be accounted the Only Numen and Divinest thing of all Nor is it to be wondred at neither that this Infinite being understood of Matter should be said to be not only Incorruptible but also Immortal these two being often used as Synonymous and Equivalent Expressions For thus in Lucretius the Corruption of all Inanimate Bodies is called Death Mors ejus quod fuit ante And again Quando aliud ex alio reficit Natura nec ullam Rem Gigni patitur nisi Morte adjutam alienâ In like manner Mortal is used by him for Corruptible Nam siquid Mortale à cunctis partibus esset Ex oculis res quaeque repentè erepta periret And this kind of Language was very familiar with Heraclitus as appears from these Passages of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Death of Fire is Generation to Air and the Death of Air is Generation to Water that is the Corruption of them And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is Death to Vapour or Air to be made Water and Death to Water to be made Earth In which Heraclitus did but imitate Orpheus as appears from this Verse of his cited by Clemens Alexand. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides which there are many Examples of this use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other Greek Writers and some in Aristotle himself who speaking of the Heavens attributes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them as one and the same thing as also affirms that the Ancients therefore made Heaven to be the Seat of the Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being only Immortal that is Incorruptible Indeed that other Expression at first sight would stagger one more where it is said of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Infinite that it doth not only Contein but also Govern all things but Simplicius tells us that this is to be understood likewise of Matter and that no more was meant by it than that all things were derived from it and depended on it as the First Principle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Philosophers spake only of natural Principles and not of Supernatural and though they say that this Infinite of theirs does both Contein and Govern all things yet this is not at all to be wondered at forasmuch as Conteining belongs to the Material Cause as that which goes through all things and likewise Governing as that from which all things according to a certain aptitude of it are made Philoponus who was a Christian represents Aristotle's sence in this whole place more fully after this manner Those of the ancient Physiologers who had no respect to any Active Efficient Cause as Anaxagoras had to Mind and Empedocles to Friendship and Contention supposed Matter to be the only Cause of all things and that it was Infinite in Magnitude Ingenerable and Incorruptible esteeming it to be a certain Divine thing which did Govern all or preside over the Compages of the Vniverse and to be Immortal that is Vndestroyable This Anaximenes said to be Air Thales to be Water but Anaximander a certain Middle thing some one thing and some another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Aristotle in this Passage tells us that it is no wonder if they who did not attend to the Active Cause that presides over the Vniverse did look upon some one of the Elements that which each of them thought to be the Cause of all other things as God But as they considering only the Material Principle conceived that to be the Cause of all things so Anaxagoras supposed Mind to be the Principle of all things and Empedocles Friendship and Contention XXIII But to make it further appear that Anaximander's Philosophy was purely Atheistical we think it convenient to shew what account is given of it by other Writers Plutarch in his Placita Philosophorum does at once briefly represent the Anaximandrian Philosophy and Censure it after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anaximander the Milesian affirms Infinite to be the First Principle And that all things are Generated out of it and Corrupted again into it and therefore that Infinite Worlds are successively thus Generated and Corrupted And he gives the reason why it is Infinite that so there might be never any Fail of Generations But he erreth in this that assigning only a Material Cause he takes away the Active Principle of things For Anaximander 's Infinite is nothing else but matter but Matter can produce nothing unless there be also an Active Cause Where he shews also how Anaximenes followed Anaximander herein in assigning only a Material Cause of the Universe without any Efficient though he differed from him in making the First Matter to be Air and deriving all things from
distinct Plastick Life of its own which are the Stratonick Atheists Wherefore there does not seem to be any room now left for any other Form of Atheism besides these Four to thrust in And we think fit here again to inculcate what hath been already intimated That one Grand Difference amongst these several Forms of Atheism is this That some of them attributing no Life at all to Matter as such nor indeed acknowledging any Plastick Life of Nature distinct from the Animal and supposing every thing whatsoever is in the world besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bare Substance of Matter considered as devoid of all Qualities that is mere extended Bulk to be Generated and Corrupted consequently resolve that all manner of Life whatsoever is Generable and Corruptible or educible out of Nothing and reducible to Nothing again and these are the Anaximandrian and Democritick Atheisms But the other which are the Stoical and Stratonical do on the contrary suppose some Life to be Fundamental and Original Essential and Substantial Ingenerable and Incorruptible as being a First Principle of things Nevertheless this not to be any Animal Conscious and Self-perceptive Life but a Plastick Life of Nature only all Atheists still agreeing in those Two forementioned Things First that there is no other Substance in the World besides Body Secondly that all Animal Life Sense and Self-perception Conscious Vnderstanding and Personality are Generated and Corrupted successively Educed out of Nothing and Reduced into Nothing again XXXII Indeed we are not ignorant that some who seem to be Well-wishers to Atheism have talk'd sometimes of Sensitive and Rational Matter as having a mind to suppose Three several sorts of Matter in the Universe Specifically different from one another that were Originally such and Self-existent from Eternity namely Sensless Sensitive and Rational As if the Mundane System might be conceived to arise from a certain Jumble of these Three several sorts of Matter as it were scuffling together in the Dark without a God and so producing Brute Animals and Men. But as this is a mere Precarious Hypothesis there being no imaginable accompt to be given how there should come to be such an Essential Difference betwixt Matters or why this Piece of Matter should be Sensitive and that Rational when another is altogether Sensless so the Suggestors of it are but mere Novices in Atheism and a kind of Bungling Well-wishers to it First because according to this Hypothesis no Life would be Produced or Destroyed in the successive Generations and Corruptions of Animals but only Concreted and Secreted in them and consequently all humane Personalities must be Eternal and Incorruptible Which is all one as to assert the Prae and Post-existence of all Souls from Eternity to Eternity a thing that all Genuine and Thorow-pac'd Atheists are in a manner as abhorrent from as they are from the Deity it self And Secondly because there can be no imaginable Reason given by them Why there might not be as well a certain Divine Matter perfectly Intellectual and Self-existent from Eternity as a Sensitive and Rational Matter And therefore such an Hypothesis as this can never serve the turn of Atheists But all those that are Masters of the Craft of Atheism and thorowly Catechized or Initiated in the Dark Mysteries thereof as hath been already inculcated do perfectly agree in this That all Animal Sentient and Conscious Life all Souls and Minds and consequently all humane Personalities are Generated out of Matter and Corrupted again into it or rather Educed out of Nothing and Reduced into Nothing again We understand also that there are certain Canting Astrological Atheists who would deduce all things from the Occult Qualities and Influences of the Stars according to their different Conjunctions Oppositions and Aspects in a certain blind and unaccomptable manner But these being Persons devoid of all manner of Sense who neither so much as pretend to give an Accompt of these Stars whether they be Animals or not as also whence they derive their Original which if they did undertake to do Atheistically they must needs resolve themselves at length into one or other of those Hypotheses already proposed therefore as we conceive they deserve not the least Consideration But we think fit here to observe that such Devotoes to the heavenly Bodies as look upon all the other Stars as petty Deities but the Sun as the Supreme Deity and Monarch of the Universe in the mean time conceiving it also to be Perfectly Intellectual which is in a manner the same with the Cleanthean Hypothesis are not so much to be accompted Atheists as Spurious Paganical and Idolatrous Theists And upon all these Considerations we conclude again that there is no other Philosophick Form of Atheism that can easily be devised besides these Four mentioned the Anaximandrian the Democritical the Stoical and the Stratonical XXXIII Amongst which Forms of Atheism there is yet another Difference to be observed and accordingly another Distribution to be made of them It being first premised that all these forementioned Sorts of Atheists if they will speak consistently and agreeably to their own Principles must needs suppose all things to be one way or other Necessary For though Epicurus introduced Contingent Liberty yet it is well known that he therein plainly contradicted his own Principles And this indeed was the First and Principal thing intended by us in this whole Undertaking to confute that False Hypothesis of the Mundane System which makes all Actions and Events Necessary upon Atheistick Grounds but especially in the Mechanick way Wherefore in the next place we must observe that though the Principles of all Atheists introduce Necessity yet the Necessity of these Atheists is not one and the same but of two different kinds some of them supposing a Necessity of Dead and Stupid Matter which is that which is commonly meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Material Necessity and is also called by Aristotle an Absolute Necessity of things Others the Necessity of a Plastick Life which the same Aristotle calls an Hypothetical Necessity For the Anaximandrian and Democritick Atheists do both of them assert a Material and Absolute Necessity of all things one in the way of Qualities and the other of Motion and Mechanism But the Stoical and Stratonical Atheists assert a Plastical and Hypothetical Necessity of things only Now one grand Difference betwixt these two Sorts of Atheisms and their Necessities lies in this That the Former though they make all things Necessary yet they suppose them also to be Fortuitous there being no Inconsistency between these Two And the Sence of both the Anaximandrian and Democritick Atheisms seems to be thus described by Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things were mingled together by Necessity according to Fortune For that Nature from whence these Atheists derived all things is at once both Necessary and Fortuitous But the Plastick Atheisms suppose such a Necessary Nature for the First Principle of things as is
that the Mediterranean Sea forced open that passage of the Herculean straits being a continual Isthmus or neck of Land before that many parts of the present Continent were heretofore Sea as also much of the present Ocean habitable Land So it cannot be doubted but that the same Strato did likewise suppose such kind of Alternations and Vicissitudes as these in all the greater parts of the Mundane System But the Stoical Atheists who made the whole World to be dispensed by one Orderly and Plastick Nature might very well and agreeably to their own Hypothesis maintain besides the Worlds Eternity one Constant and Invariable Course or Tenor of things in it as Plinius Secundus doth who if he were any thing seems to have been one of these Atheists Mundum hoc quod nomine alio Coelum appellare libuit cujus circumflexu reguntur cuncta Numen esse credi par est Aeternum Immensum neque Genitum neque Interiturum Idem rerum Naturae Opus rerum ipsa Natura The World and that which by another name is called the Heavens by whose Circumgyration all things are governed ought to be believed to be a Numen Eternal Immense such as was never Made and shall never be Destroyed Where by the way it may be again observed that those Atheists who denied a God according to the True Notion of him as a Conscious Vnderstanding Being presiding over the whole World did notwithstanding look upon either the World it self or else a mere Sensless Plastick Nature in it as a kind of Numen or Deity they supposing it to be Ingenerable and Incorruptible Which same Pliny as upon the grounds of the Stoical Atheism he maintained against the Anaximandrians and Democriticks the Worlds Eternity and Incorruptibility so did he likewise in way of Opposition to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Infinity of Worlds of theirs assert that there was but One World and that Finite In like manner we read concerning that Famous Stoick Boethus whom Laertius affirms to have denied the World to be an Animal which according to the language and sence of those times was all one as to deny a God that he also maintained contrary to the received Doctrine of the Stoicks the Worlds Ante-Eternity and Incorruptibllity Philo in his Treatise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Incorruptibility of the World testifying the same of him Nevertheless it seems that some of these Stoical Atheists did also agree with the Generality of the other Stoical Theists in supposing a successive Infinity of Worlds Generated and Corrupted by reason of intervening Periodical Conflagrations though all dispensed by such a Stupid and Sensless Nature as governs Plants and Trees For thus much we gather from those words of Seneca before cited where describing this Atheistical Hypothesis he tells us that though the World were a Plant that is governed by a Vegetative or Plastick Nature without any Animality yet notwithstanding ab initio ejus usque ad exitum c. it had both a Beginning and will have an End and from its Beginning to its End all was dispensed by a kind of Regular Law even its Successive Conflagrations too as well as those Inundations or Deluges which have sometimes hapned Which yet they understood after such a manner as that in these several Revolutions and Successive Circuits or Periods of Worlds all things should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exactly alike to what had been Infinitely before and should be again Infinitely afterwards Of which more elsewhere XXXIV This Quadripartite Atheism which we have now represented is the Kingdom of Darkness Divided or Labouring with an Intestine Seditious War in its own Bowels and thereby destroying it self Insomuch that we might well save our selves the labour of any further Confutation of Atheism merely by committing these several Forms of Atheism together and dashing them one against another they opposing and contradicting each other no less than they do Theism it self For first those two Pairs of Atheisms on the one hand the Anaximandrian and Democritick on the other the Stoical and Stratonical do absolutely destroy each other the Former of them supposing the First Principle of all things to be Stupid Matter devoid of all manner of Life and contending that all Life as well as other Qualities is Generable and Corruptible or a mere Accidental thing and looking upon the Plastick Life of Nature as a Figment or Phantastick Capritio a thing almost as formidable and altogether as impossible as a Deity the other on the contrary founding all upon this Principle That there is a Life and Natural Perception Essential to Matter Ingenerable and Incorruptible and contending it to be utterly impossible to give any accompt of the Phaenomena of the World the Original of Motion the Orderly Frame and Disposition of things and the Nature of Animals without this Fundamental Life of Nature Again the Single Atheisms belonging to each of these several Pairs quarrel as much also between themselves For the Democritick Atheism explodes the Anaximandrian Qualities and Forms demonstrating that the Natural Production of such Entities out of Nothing and the Corruption of them again into Nothing is of the two rather more impossible than a Divine Creation and Annihilation And on the other side the Anaximandrian Atheist plainly discovers that when the Democriticks and Atomicks have spent all their Fury against these Qualities and Forms and done what they can to salve the Phaenomena of Nature without them another way themselves do notwithstanding like drunken men reel and stagger back again into them and are unavoidably necessitated at last to take up their Sanctuary in them In like manner the Stoical and Stratonical Atheists may as effectually undo and confute each other the Former of them urging against the Latter That besides that Prodigious Absurdity of making every Atom of Sensless Matter Infallibly Wise or Omniscient without any Consciousness there can be no reason at all given by the Hylozoists why the Matter of the whole Universe might not as well Conspire and Confederate together into One as all the single Atoms that compound the Body of any Animal or Man or why one Conscious Life might not as well result from the Totum of the former as of the latter by which means the whole World would become an Animal or God Again the Latter contending that the Stoical or Cosmo-plastick Atheist can pretend no reason why the whole World might not have one Sentient and Rational as well as one Plastick Soul in it that is as well be an Animal as a Plant. Moreover that the Sensitive Souls of Brute Animals and the Rational Souls of Men could never possibly emerge out of one Single Plastick and Vegetative Soul in the whole Universe And lastly that it is altogether as impossible that the whole World should have Life in it and yet none of its Parts have any Life of their own as that the whole World should be White or Black and yet no part of it
is not the Deity it self but a Thing very remote from it and far below it so neither is it the Divine Art as it is in it self Pure and Abstract but Concrete and Embodied only for the Divine Art considered in it self is nothing but Knowledge Vnderstanding or Wisdom in the Mind of God Now Knowledge and Understanding in its own Nature is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a certain Separate and Abstract thing and of so Subtil and Refined a Nature as that it is not Capable of being Incorporated with Matter or Mingled and Blended with it as the Soul of it And therefore Aristotle's Second Instance which he propounds as most pertinent to Illustrate this business of Nature by namely of the Physicians Art curing himself is not so adequate thereunto because when the Medicinal Art Cures the Physician in whom it is it doth not there Act as Nature that is as Concrete and Embodied Art but as Knowledge and Vnderstanding only which is Art Naked Abstract and Vnbodied as also it doth its Work Ambagiously by the Physician 's Willing and Prescribing to himself the use of such Medicaments as do but conduce by removing of Impediments to help that which is Nature indeed or the Inward Archeus to effect the Cure Art is defined by Aristotle to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Reason of the thing without Matter and so the Divine Art or Knowledge in the Mind of God is Vnbodied Reason but Nature is Ratio Mersa Confusa Reason Immersed and Plunged into Matter and as it were Fuddled in it and Confounded with it Nature is not the Divine Art Archetypal but only Ectypal it is a living Stamp or Signature of the Divine Wisdom which though it act exactly according to its Arthetype yet it doth not at all Comprehend nor Understand the Reason of what it self doth And the Difference between these two may be resembled to that between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Reason of the Mind and Conception called Verbum Mentis and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Reason of External Speech the Latter of which though it bear a certain Stamp and Impress of the Former upon it yet it self is nothing but Articulate Sound devoid of all Vnderstanding and Sense Or else we may Illustrate this business by another Similitude comparing the Divine Art and Wisdom to an Architect but Nature to a Manuary Opificer the Difference betwixt which two is thus set forth by Aristotle pertinently to our purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We account the Architects in every thing more honourable than the Manuary Opificers because they understand the Reason of the things done whereas the other as some Inanimate things only Do not knowing what they Do the Difference between them being only this that Inanimate Things Act by a certain Nature in them but the Manuary Opificer by Habit. Thus Nature may be called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Manuary Opificer that Acts subserviently under the Architectonical Art and Wisdom of the Divine Understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which does Do without Knowing the Reason of what â—t Doth 12. Wherefore as we did before observe the Preeminences of Nature above Humane Art so we must here take Notice also of the Imperfections and Defects of it in which respect it falls short of Humane Art which are likewise Two and the First of them is this That though it Act Artificially for the sake of Ends yet it self doth neither Intend those Ends nor Vnderstand the Reason of that it doth Nature is not Master of that Consummate Art and Wisdom according to which it acts but only a Servant to it and a Drudging Executioner of the Dictates of it This Difference betwixt Nature and Abstract Art or Wisdom is expressed by Plotinus in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How doth Wisdom differ from that which is called Nature Verily in this Manner That Wisdom is the First Thing but Nature the Last and Lowest for Nature is but an Image or Imitation of Wisdom the Last thing of the Soul which hath the lowest Impress of Reason shining upon it as when a thick piece of Wax is thoroughly impressed upon by a Seal that Impress which is clear and distinct in the superiour Superficies of it will in the lower side be weak and obscure and such is the Stamp and Signature of Nature compared with that of Wisdom and Vnderstanding Nature being a thing which doth only Do but not Know. And elsewhere the same Writer declares the Difference between the Spermatick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Reasons and Knowledges or Conceptions of the Mind in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether are these Plastick Reasons or Forms in the Soul Knowledges But how shall it then Act according to those Knowledges For the Plastick Reason or Form Acts or Works in Matter and that which acts Naturally is not Intellection nor Vision but a certain Power of moving Matter which doth not Know but only Do and makes as it were a Stamp or Figure in Water And with this Doctrine of the Ancients a Modern Judicious Writer and Sagacious Inquirer into Nature seems fully to agree that Nature is such a Thing as doth not Know but only Do For after he had admired that Wisdom and Art by which the Bodies of Animals are framed he concludes that one or other of these two things must needs be acknowledged that either the Vegetative or Plastick Power of the Soul by which it Fabricates and Organizes its own body is more Excellent and Divine than the Rational Or else In Naturae Operibus neque Prudentiam nec Intellectum inesse sedita solùm videri Conceptui nostro qui secundùm Artes nostras Facultates seu Exemplaria à nobismetipsis mutuata de rebus Naturae divinis judicamus Quasi Principia Naturae Activa effectus suos eo modo producerent quo nos opera nostra Artificialia solemus That in the Works of Nature there is neither Prudence nor Vnderstanding but only it seems so to our Apprehensions who judge of these Divine things of Nature according to our own Arts and Faculties and Patterns borrowed from our selves as if the Active Principles of Nature did produce their Effects in the same manner as we do our Artificial Works Wherefore we conclude agreeably to the Sence of the best Philosophers both Ancient and Modern That Nature is such a Thing as though it act Artificially and for the sake of Ends yet it doth but Ape and Mimick the Divine Art and Wisdom it self not Understanding those Ends which it Acts for nor the Reason of what it doth in order to them for which Cause also it is not Capable of Consultation or Deliberation nor can it Act Electively or with Discretion 13. But because this may seem strange at the first sight that Nature should be said to Act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the sake of Ends and Regularly or Artificially and yet be
determines the Motion of it Vitally must needs do it by some other Energy of its own as it is Reasonable also to conceive that it self hath some Vital Sympathy with that Matter which it Acts upon But we apprehend that Both these may be without Clear and Express Consciousness Thus the Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every Life is Energie even the worst of Lives and therefore that of Nature Whose Energie is not like that of Fire but such an Energie as though there be no Sense belonging to it yet is it not Temerarious or Fortuitous but Orderly Regular Wherefore this Controversie whether the Energy of the Plastick Nature be Cogitation or no seems to be but a Logomachy or Contention about Words For if Clear and Express Consciousness be supposed to be included in Cogitation then it must needs be granted that Cogitation doth not belong to the Plastick Life of Nature but if the Notion of that Word be enlarged so as to comprehend all Action distinct from Local Motion and to be of equal Extent with Life then the Energie of Nature is Cogitation Nevertheless if any one think fit to attribute some Obscure and Imperfect Sense or Perception different from that of Animals to the Energie of Nature and will therefore call it a kind of Drowsie Vnawakened or Astonish'd Cogitation the Philosopher before mentioned will not very much gainsay it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any will needs attribute some kind of Apprehension or Sense to Nature then it must not be such a Sense or Apprehension as is in Animals but something that differs as much from it as the Sense or Cogitation of one in a profound sleep differs from that of one who is awake And since it cannot be denied but that the Plastick Nature hath a certain Dull and Obscure Idea of that which it Stamps and Prints upon Matter the same Philosopher himself sticks not to call this Idea of Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Spectacle and Contemplamen as likewise the Energy of Nature towards it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Silent Contemplation nay he allows that Nature may be said to be in some Sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Lover of Spectacles or Contemplation 17. However that there may be some Vital Energy without Clear and Express 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con-sense and Consciousness Animadversion Attention or Self-perception seems reasonable upon several accompts For first those Philosophers themselves who make the Essence of the Soul to consist in Cogitation and again the Essence of Cogitation in Clear and Express Consciousness cannot render it any way probable that the Souls of Men in all profound Sleeps Lethargies and Apoplexies as also of Embryo's in the Womb from their very first arrival thither are never so much as one moment without Expresly Conscious Cogitations which if they were according to the Principles of their Philosophy they must ipso facto cease to have any Being Now if the Souls of Men and Animals be at any time without Consciousness and Self-perception then it must needs be granted that Clear and Express Consciousness is not Essential to Life There is some appearance of Life and Vital Sympathy in certain Vegetables and Plants which however called Sensitive Plants and Plant-animals cannot well be supposed to have Animal Sense and Fancy or Express Consciousness in them although we are not ignorant in the mean time how some endeavour to salve all those Phaenomena Mechanically It is certain that our Humane Souls themselves are not always Conscious of whatever they have in them for even the Sleeping Geometrician hath at that time all his Geometrical Theorems and Knowledges some way in him as also the Sleeping Musician all his Musical Skill and Songs and therefore why may it not be possible for the Soul to have likewise some Actual Energie in it which it is not Expresly Conscious of We have all Experience of our doing many Animal Actions Non-attendingly which we reflect upon afterwards as also that we often continue a long Series of Bodily Motions by a mere Virtual Intention of our Minds and as it were by Half a Cogitation That Vital Sympathy by which our Soul is united and tied fast as it were with a Knot to the Body is a thing that we have no direct Consciousness of but only in its Effects Nor can we tell how we come to be so differently affected in our Souls from the many different Motions made upon our Bodies As likewise we are not Conscious to our selves of that Energy whereby we impress Variety of Motions and Figurations upon the Animal Spirits of our Brain in our Phantastick Thoughts For though the Geometrician perceive himself to make Lines Triangles and Circles in the Dust with his Finger yet he is not aware how he makes all those same Figures first upon the Corporeal Spirits of his Brain from whence notwithstanding as from a Glass they are reflected to him Fancy being rightly concluded by Aristotle to be a Weak and Obscure Sense There is also another more Interiour kind of Plastick Power in the Soul if we may so call it whereby it is Formative of its own Cogitations which it self is not always Conscious of as when in Sleep or Dreams it frames Interlocutory Discourses betwixt it self and other Persons in a long Series with Coherent Sence and Apt Connexions in which oftentimes it seems to be surprized with unexpected Answers and Reparties though it self were all the while the Poet and Inventor of the whole Fable Not only our Nictations for the most part when we are awake but also our Nocturnal Volutations in Sleep are performed with very little or no Consciousness Respiration or that Motion of the Diaphragmae and other Muscles which causes it there being no sufficient Mechanical accompt given of it may well be concluded to be always a Vital Motion though it be not always Animal since no man can affirm that he is perpetually Conscious to himself of that Energy of his Soul which does produce it when he is awake much less when asleep And Lastly the Cartesian Attempts to salve the Motion of the Heart Mechanically seem to be abundantly confuted by Autopsy and Experiment evincing the Systole of the Heart to be a Muscular Constriction caused by some Vital Principle to make which nothing but a Pulsifick Corporeal Quality in the Substance of the Heart it self is very Unphilosophical and Absurd Now as we have no voluntary Imperium at all upon the Systole and Diastole of the Heart so are we not conscious to our selves of any Energy of our own Soul that causes them and therefore we may reasonably conclude from hence also that there is some Vital Energy without Animal Fancy or Synaesthesis express Consciousness and Self-perception 18. Wherefore the Plastick Nature acting neither by Knowledge nor by Animal Fancy neither Electively nor Hormetically must be concluded to act Fatally Magically and Sympathetically And thus that Curious
and Diligent Inquirer into Nature before commended resolves Natura tanquam Fato quodam seu Mandato secundùm Leges operante movet Nature moveth as it were by a kind of Fate or Command acting according to Laws Fate and the Laws or Commands of the Deity concerning the Mundane Oeconomy they being really the same thing ought not to be looked upon neither as Verbal things nor as mere Will and Cogitation in the Mind of God but as an Energetical and Effectual Principle constituted by the Deity for the bringing of things decreed to pass The Aphrodisian Philosopher with others of the Ancients have concluded that Fate and Nature are but two different Names for one and the same thing and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both that which is done Fatally is done Naturally and also whatever is done Naturally is done Fatally but that which we assert in this place is only this that the Plastick Nature may be said to be the True and Proper Fate of Matter or the Corporeal World Now that which acts not by any Knowledge or Fancy Will or Appetite of its own but only Fatally according to Laws and Impresses made upon it but differently in different Cases may be said also to act Magically and Sympathetically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The true Magick is the Friendship and Discord that is in the Vniverse and again Magick is said to be founded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Sympathy and Variety of diverse Powers conspiring together into one Animal Of which Passages though the Principal meaning seem to be this that the ground of Magical Fascination is one Vital Vnitive Principle in the Universe yet they imply also that there is a certain Vital Energy not in the way of Knowledge and Fancy Will and Animal Appetite but Fatally Sympathetical and Magical As indeed that Mutual Sympathy which we have constant Expâ—rience of betwixt our Soul and our Body being not a Material and Mechanical but Vital thing may be called also Magical 19. From what hath been hitherto declared concerning the Plastick Nature it may appear That though it be a thing that acts for Ends Artificially and which may be also called the Divine Art and the Fate of the Corporeal World yet for all that it is neither God nor Goddess but a Low and Imperfect Creature Forasmuch as it is not Master of that Reason and Wisdom according to which it acts nor does it properly Intend those Ends which it acts for nor indeed is it Expresly Conscious of what it doth it not Knowing but only Doing according to Commands Laws imprest upon it Neither of which things ought to seem strange or incredible since Nature may as well act Regularly and Artificially without any Knowledge and Consciousness of its own as Forms of Letters compounded together may Print Coherent Philosophick Sence though they understand nothing at all and it may also act for the sake of those Ends that are not intended by it self but some Higher Being as well as the Saw or Hatchet in the hand of the Architect or Mechanick doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ax cuts for the sake of something though it self does not ratiocinate nor intend or design any thing but is only subservient to that which does so It is true that our Humane Actions are not governed by such exact Reason Art and Wisdom nor carried on with such Constancy Eavenness and Uniformity as the Actions of Nature are notwithstanding which since we act according to a Knowledge of our own and are Masters of that Wisdom by which our Actions are directed since we do not act Fatally only but Electively and Intendingly with Consciousness and Self-perception the Rational Life that is in us ought to be accompted a much Higher and more Noble Perfection than that Plastick Life of Nature Nay this Plastick Nature is so far from being the First and Highest Life that it is indeed the Last and Lowest of all Lives it being really the same thing with the Vegetative which is Inferiour to the Sensitive The difference betwixt Nature and Wisdom was before observed that Wisdom is the First and Highest thing but Nature the Last and Lowest this latter being but an Umbratile Imitation of the former And to this purpose this Plastick Nature is further described by the same Philosopher in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Spermatick Reason or Plastick Nature is no pure Mind or perfect Intellect nor any kind of pure Soul neither but something which depends upon it being as it were an Effulgency or Eradiation from both together Mind and Soul or Soul affected according to Mind generating the same as a Lower kind of Life And though this Plastick Nature contain no small part of Divine Providence in it yet since it is a thing that cannot act Electively nor with Discretion it must needs be granted that there is a Higher and Diviner Providence than this which also presides over the Corporeal World it self which was a thing likewise insisted upon by that Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things in the world are not administred merely by Spermatick Reasons but by Perileptick that is Comprehensive Intellectual Reasons which are in order of Nature before the other because in the Spermatick Reasons cannot be contained that which is contrary to them c. Where though this Philosopher may extend his Spermatick Reasons further than we do our Plastick Nature in this place which is only confined to the Motions of Matter yet he concludes that there is a higher Principle presiding over the Universe than this So that it is not Ratio mersa confusa a Reason drowned in Matter and confounded with it which is the Supreme Governour of the World but a Providence perfectly Intellectual Abstract and Released 20. But though the Plastick Nature be the Lowest of all Lives nevertheless since it is a Life it must needs be Incorporeal all Life being such For Body being nothing but Antitypous Extension or Resisting Bulk nothing but mere Outside Aliud extra Aliud together with Passive Capability hath no Internal Energy Self-activity or Life belonging to it it is not able so much as to Move it self and therefore much less can it Artificially direct its own Motion Moreover in the Efformation of the Bodies of Animals it is One and the self-same thing that directs the Whole that which Contrives and Frames the Eye cannot be a distinct thing from that which Frames the Ear nor that which makes the Hand from that which makes the Foot the same thing which delineates the Veins must also form the Arteries and that which fabricates the Nerves must also project the Muscles and Joynts it must be the same thing that designs and Organizes the Heart and Brain with such Communications betwixt them One and the self-same thing must needs have in it the entire Idea and the complete Model or Platform of the whole Organick Body For the
of a Wooden Hand For thus these Physiologers declare the Generations and Causes of Figures only or the Matter out of which things are made as Air and Earth Whereas no Artificer would think it sufficient to render such a Cause of any Artificial Fabrick because the Instrument happened to fall so upon the Timber that therefore it was Hollow here and Plane there but rather because himself made such strokes and for such Ends c. Now in the close of all this Philosopher at length declares That there is another Principle of Corporeal things besides the Material and such as is not only the Cause of Motion but also acts Artificially in order to Ends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is such a thing as that which we call Nature that is not the Fortuitous Motion of Sensless Matter but a Plastick Regular and Artificial Nature such as acts for Ends and Good declaring in the same place what this Nature is namely that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soul or Part of Soul or not without Soul and from thence inferring that it properly belongs to a Physiologer to treat concerning the Soul also But he concludes afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the whole Soul is not Nature whence it remains that according to Aristotle's sence Nature is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either part of a Soul or not without Soul that is either a lower Part or Faculty of some Conscious Soul or else an Inferiour kind of Life by it self which is not without Soul but Suborditate to it and dependent on it 22. As for the Bodies of Animals Aristotle first resolves in General that Nature in them is either the whole Soul or else some part of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature as the Moving Principle or as that which acts Artificially for Ends so far as concerns the Bodies of Animals is either the whole Soul or else some Part of it But afterward he determines more particularly that the Plastick Nature is not the whole Soul in Animals but only some part of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Nature in Animals properly so called is some Lower Power or Faculty lodged in their respective Souls whether Sensitive or Rational And that there is Plastick Nature in the Souls of Animals the same Aristotle elsewhere affirms and proves after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is that which in the Bodies of Animals holds together such things as of their own Nature would otherwise move contrary ways and flie asunder as Fire and Earth which would be distracted and dissipated the one tending upwards the other downwards were there not something to hinder them now if there be any such thing this must be the Soul which is also the Cause of Nourishment and Augmentation Where the Philosopher adds that though some were of Opinion that Fire was that which was the Cause of Nourishment and Augmentation in Animals yet this was indeed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only the Concause or Instrument and not simply the Cause but rather the Soul And to the same purpose he philosophizeth elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither is Concoction by which Nourishment is made in Animals done without the Soul nor without Heat for all things are done by Fire And certainly it seems very agreeable to the Phaenomena to acknowledge something in the Bodies of Animals Superiour to Mechanism as that may well be thought to be which keeps the more fluid parts of them constantly in the same Form and Figure so as not to be enormously altered in their Growth by disproportionate nourishment that which restores Flesh that was lost consolidates dissolved Continuities Incorporates the newly received Nourishment and joyns it Continuously with the preexistent parts of Flesh and Bone which regenerates and repairs Veins consumed or cut off which causes Dentition in so regular a manner and that not only in Infants but also Adult persons that which casts off Excrements and dischargeth Superfluities which makes things seem ungrateful to an Interiour Sense that were notwithstanding pleasing to the Taste That Nature of Hippocrates that is the Curatrix of Diseases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Archeus of the Chymists or Paracelsians to which all Medicaments are but Subservient as being able to effect nothing of themselves without it I say there seems to be such a Principle as this in the Bodies of Animals which is not Mechanical but Vital and therefore since Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity we may with Aristotle conclude it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a certain part of the Soul of those Animals or a Lower Inconscious Power lodged in them 23. Besides this Plastick Nature which is in Animals forming their several Bodies Artificially as so many Microcosms or Little Worlds there must be also a general Plastick Nature in the Macrocosm the whole Corporeal Universe that which makes all things thus to conspire every where and agree together into one Harmony Concerning which Plastick Nature of the Universe the Author de Mundo writes after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Power passing thorough all things ordered and formed the whole World Again he calls the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Spirit and a Living and Generative Nature and plainly declares it to be a thing distinct from the Deity but Subordinate to it and dependent on it But Aristotle himself in that genuine Work of his before mentioned speaks clearly and positively concerning this Plastick Nature of the Universe as well as that of Animals in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemeth that as there is Art in Artificial things so in the things of Nature there is another such like Principle or Cause which we our selves partake of in the same manner as we do of Heat and Cold from the Vniverse Wherefore it is more probable that the whole World was at fiâ—st made by such a Cause as this if at least it were made and that it is still conserved by the same than that Mortal Animals should be so For there is much more of Order and determinate Regularity in the Heavenly Bodies than in our selves but more of Fortuitousness and inconstant Regularity among these Mortal things Notwithstanding which some there are who though they cannot but acknowledge that the Bodies of Animals were all framed by an Artificial Nature yet they will needs contend that the System of the Heavens sprung merely from Fortune and Chance although there be not the least appearance of Fortuitousness or Temerity in it And then he sums up all into this Conclusion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore it is manifest that there is some such thing as that which we call Nature that is that there is not only an Artificial Methodical and Plastick Nature in Animals by which their respective Bodies are Framed and Conserved but also that there is such a General Plastick Nature likewise in the Vniverse by which the Heavens
those Atheistick Arguments and so stand upon our defensive Posture but we shall also assault Atheism even with its own Weapons and plainly demonstrate that all Forms of Atheism are unintelligible Nonsence and Absolute Impossibility to Humane Reason As we shall likewise over and above Occasionally insert some as we think Undeniable Arguments for a Deity The Digression concerning the Plastick Life of Nature or an Artificial Orderly and Methodical Nature N. 37. Chap. 3. 1. That neither the Hylozoick nor Cosmo-plastick Atheists are condemned for asserting an Orderly and Artificial Plastick Nature as a Life distinct from the Animal however this be a Thing exploded not only by the Atomick Atheists but also by some Professed Theists who notwithstanding might have an undiscerned Tang of the Mechanically-Atheistick Humour hanging about them 2. If there be no Plastick Artificial Nature admitted then it must be concluded that either all things come to pass by Fortuitous Mechanism and Material Necessity the Motion of Matter unguided or else that God doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do all things himself Immediately and Miraculously framing the Body of every Gnat and Fly as it were with his own hands since Divine Laws and Commands cannot Execute themselves nor be the proper Efficient Causes of things in Nature 3. To suppose all things to come to pass Fortuitously or by the Vnguided Motion of Matter a thing altogether as Irrational as it is Atheistical and Impious there being many Phaenomena not only above the Powers of Mechanism but also contrary to the Laws of it The Mechanick Theists make God but an Idle Spectator of the Fortuitous Motions of Matter and render his Wisdom altogether Vseless and Insignificant Aristotle's Judicious Censure of the Fortuitous Mechanists with the Ridiculousness of that Pretence that Material and Mechanical Reasons are the Only Philosophical 4. That it seems neither decorous in respect of God nor congruous to Reason that he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do all things himself Immediately and Miraculously Nature being quite Superseded and made to signifie nothing The same further confuted by the Slow and Gradual Process of things in Nature as also by those Errors and Bungles that are committed when the Matter proves Inept and Contumacious arguing the Agent not to be Irresistible 5. Reasonably inferred that there is a Plastick Nature in the Vniverse as a Subordinate Instrument of Divine Providence in the Orderly Disposal of Matter but yet so as not without a Higher Providence presiding over it forasmuch as this Plastick Nature cannot act Electively or with Discretion Those Laws of Nature concerning Motion which the Mechanick Theists themselves suppose really nothing else but a Plastick Nature 6. The Agreeableness of this Doctrine with the Sentiments of the best Philosophers in all Ages Aristotle Plato Empedocles Heraclitus Hippocrates Zeno and the Paracelsians Anaxagoras though a Professed Theist severely censur'd both by Aristotle and Plato as an Encourager of Atheism merely because he used Material and Mechanical Causes more than Mental and Final Physiologers and Astronomers why vulgarly suspected of Atheism in Plato's time 7. The Plastick Nature no Occult Quality but the only Intelligible Cause of that which is the Grandest of all Phaenomena the Orderly Regularity and Harmony of Things which the Mechanick Theists however pretending to salve all Phaenomena can give no accompt at all of A God or Infinite Mind asserted by them in vain and to no purpose 8. Two Things here to be performed by us First to give an Accompt of the Plastick Nature and then to shew how the Notion of it hath been Mistaken and Abused by Atheists The First General Accompt of this Plastick Nature according to Aristotle that it is to be conceived as Art it self acting Inwardly and Immediately upon the Matter as if Harmony Living in the Musical Instruments should move the Strings of them without any External Impulse 9. Two Preeminencies of the Plastick Nature above Humane Art First that whereas Humane Art acts upon the Matter from without Cumbersomely and Moliminously with Tumult and Hurliburly Nature acting on it from within more Commandingly doth its Work Easily Cleaverly and Silently Humane Art acts on the Matter Mechanically but Nature Vitally and Magically 10. The Second Preeminence of Nature above Humane Art that whereas Humane Artists are often to seek and at a loss anxiously Consult and Deliberate and upon Second thoughts Mend their former Work Nature is never to seek nor Vnresolved what to do nor doth she ever Repent afterwards of what she hath done changing her Former Course Humane Artists themselves Consult not as Artists but only for want of Art and therefore Nature though never Consulting may act Artificially Concluded that what is called Nature is really the Divine Art 11. Nevertheless that Nature is not the Divine Art Pure and Abstract but Concreted and Embodied in Matter Ratio Mersa Confusa Not the Divine Art Archetypal but Ectypal Nature differs from the Divine Art as the Manuary Opificer from the Architect 12. Two Imperfections of the Plastick Nature in respect whereof it falls short even of Humane Art First That though it act for Ends Artificially yet it self neither Intends those Ends nor Vnderstands the Reason of what it doth and therefore cannot act Electively The Difference between the Spermatick Reasons and Knowledge Nature doth but Ape or Mimick the Divine Art or Wisdom being not Master of that Reason according to which it acts but only a Servant to it and Drudging Executioner of it 13. Proved that there may be such a thing as acts Artificially though it self do not comprehend that Art by which its Motions are Governed First from Musical Habits The Dauncer resembles the Artificial Life of Nature 14. The same further evinced from the Instincts of Brute-animals directing them to act Rationally and Artificially in order to their own Good and the Good of the Vniverse without any Reason of their own The Instincts in Brutes but Passive Impresses of the Divine Wisdom and a kind of Fate upon them 15. The Second Imperfection of the Plastick Nature that it acts without Animal Phancy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Express con-Con-sense and Consciousness and is devoid of Self-perception and Self-enjoyment 16. Whether this Energy of the Plastick Nature be to be called Cogitation or no but a Logomachy or Contention about Words Granted that what moves Matter Vitally must needs do it by some Energy of its own distinct from Local Motion but that there may be a simple Vital Energy without that Duplicity which is in Synaesthesis or clear and express Consciousness Nevertheless that the Energy of Nature might be called a certain Drowsie Vnawakened or Astonish'd Cogitation 17. Instances which render it probable that there may be a Vital Energy without Synaesthesis clear and express Con-sense or Consciousness 18. The Plastick Nature acting neither Knowingly nor Phantastically acts Fatally Magically and Sympathetically The Divine Laws and Fate as to Matter not mere Cogitation in the Mind of
God but an Energetick and Effectual Principle and the Plastick Nature the true and proper Fate of Matter or the Corporeal World What Magick is and that Nature which acts Fatally acts also Magically and Sympathetically 19. That the Plastick Nature though it be the Divine Art and Fate yet for all that it it neither God nor Goddess but a Low and Imperfect Creature it acting Artificially and Rationally no otherwise than compounded Forms of Letters when printing Coherent Philosophick Sence nor for Ends than a Saw or Hatchet in the hands of a skilful Mechanick The Plastick and Vegetative Life of Nature the Lowest of all Lives and Inferiour to the Sensitive A Higher Providence than that of the Plastick Nature governing the Corporeal World it self 20. Notwithstanding which forasmuch as the Plastick Nature is a Life it must needs be Incorporeal One and the same thing having in it an entire Model and Platform and acting upon several distant parts of Matter at once coherently cannot be Corporeal and though Aristotle no where declare whether his Nature be Corporeal or Incorporeal which he neither doth clearly concerning the Rational Soul and his Followers conclude it to be Corporeal yet according to the very Principles of that Philosophy it must needs be otherwise 21. The Plastick Nature being Incorporeal must either be a Lower Power lodged in Souls that are also Conscious Sensitive or Rational or else a distinct Substantial Life by it self and Inferiour Kind of Soul How the Platonists complicate both these together with Aristotle's agreeable Determination that Nature is either Part of a Soul or not without Soul 22. The Plastick Nature as to Animals according to Aristotle a Part or Lower Power of their Respective Souls That the Phaenomena prove a Plastick Nature or Archeus in Animals to make which a distinct thing from the Soul is to multiply Entities without necessity The Soul endued with a Plastick Power the chief Formatrix of its own Body the Contribution of certain other Causes not excluded 23. That besides that Plastick Principle in Particular Animals forming them as so many Little Worlds there is a General Plastick Nature in the whole Corporeal Vniverse which likewise according to Aristotle is either a Part and Lower Power of a Conscious Mundane Soul or else something depending on it 24. That no less according to Aristotle than Plato and Socrates our selves partake of Life from the Life of the Vniverse as well as we do of Heat and Cold from the Heat and Cold of the Vniverse from whence it appears that Aristotle also held the worlds Animation with further Vndeniable Proof thereof An Answer to Two the most considerable places of that Philosopher that seem to imply the contrary That Aristotles First Immoveable Mover was no Soul but a Perfect Intellect Abstract from Matter but that he supposed this to move only as a Final Cause or as being Loved and besides it a Mundane Soul and Plastick Nature to move the Heavens Efficiently Neither Aristotle's Nature nor his Mundane Soul the Supreme Deity However though there be no such Mundane Soul as both Plato and Aristotle conceived yet notwithstanding there may be a Plastick Nature depending upon a Higher Intellectual Principle 25. No Impossibility of some other Particular Plastick Principles and though it be not reasonable to think that every Plant Herb and Pile of Grass hath a Plastick or Vegetative Soul of its own nor that the Earth is an Animal yet that there may possibly be One Plastick Inconscious Nature in the whole Terraqueous Globe by which Vegetables may be severally organized and framed and all things performed which transcend the Power of Fortuitous Mechanism 26. Our Second Vndertaking which was to shew how grosly those Atheists who acknowledge this Plastick Nature Misunderstand it and Abuse the Notion to make a Counterfeit God-almighty or Numen of it to the exclusion of the True Deity First in their supposing that to be the First and Highest Principle of the Vniverse which is the Last and lowest of all Lives a thing as Essentially Derivative from and Dependent upon a Higher Intellectual Principle as the Eccho on the Original Voice 27. Secondly in their making Sense and Reason in Animals to Emerge out of a Sensless Life of Nature by the mere Modification and Organization of Matter That no Duplication of Corporeal Organs can ever make One Single Inconscious Life to advance into Redoubled Consciousness and Self-enjoyment 28. Thirdly in attributing Perfect Knowledge and Vnderstanding to this Life of Nature which yet themselves suppose to be devoid of all Animal Sense and Consciousness 29. Lastly in making the Plastick Life of Nature to be merely Corporeal the Hylozoists contending that it is but an Inadequate Conception of Body as the only Substance and fondly dreaming that the Vulgar Notion of God is nothing but such an Inadequate Conception of the Matter of the Whole Vniverse mistaken for a Complete and Entire Substance by it self the Cause of all things CHAP. IV. The Idea of God declared in way of Answer to the First Atheistick Argument The Grand Prejudice against the Naturality of this Idea as Essentially including Unity or Onelyness in it from the Pagan Polytheism removed Proved that the Intelligent Pagans generally acknowledged One Supreme Deity What their Polytheism and Idolatry was with some Accompt of Christianity 1. 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 mere Phantasm of the Sound The Disease called by the Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Petrification or Dead Insensibility of the Mind 2. 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 And that they have also the same Idea of him with Theists they denying the very same thing which the others affirm 3. 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 Vnmade and be the Cause of those other things that are Made 4. The Two most Opposite Opinions concerning that which was Self-existent from Eternity or Vnmade 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 sence of the former Atheists So that the Idea of God in general is a Perfect Consciously Vnderstanding Being or Mind Self-existent from Eternity and the Cause of all other things 5. Observed That the Atheists who deny a God according to the true Idea of him do often Abuse the word calling Sensless Matter by that Name and meaning nothing else thereby but a
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
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
may be added according to the Opinion of many That there is a kind of Necessity of some Evils in the World for a Condiment as it were to give a Rellish and Haut-goust to Good since the Nature of Imperfect Animals is such that they are apt to have but a Dull and Sluggish Sense a Flat and Insipid Taste of Good unless it be quickned and stimulated heightned and invigorated by being compared with the Contrary Evil. As also that there seems to be a Necessary Vse in the World of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those Involuntary Evils of Pain and Suffering both for the Exercise of Vertue and the Quickning and Exciting the Activity of the World as also for the Repressing Chastising and Punishing of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those Voluntary Evils of Vice and Action Upon which several accompts probably Plato concluded that Evils could not be uâ—terly destroyed at least in this Lower World which according to him is the Region of Lapsed Souls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is neither possible O Theodorus That Evils should be quite destroyed for there must be something always Contrary to Good nor yet that they should be seated amongst the Gods but they will of necessity infest this Lower Mortal Region and Nature Wherefore we ought to endeavour to flee from hence with all possible speed and our flight from hence is this to assimilate our selves to God as much as may be Which Assimilation to God consisteth in being Just and Holy with Wisdom Thus according to the Sence of Plato though God be the Original of all things yet he is not to be accounted properly the Cause of Evils at least Moral ones they being only Defects but they are to be imputed to the Necessity of Imperfect Beings which is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Necessity which doth often resist God and as it were shake off his Bridle Rational Creatures being by means thereof in a Capability of acting contrary to God's Will and Law as well as their own true Nature and Good and other things hindred of that Perfection which the Divine Goodness would else have imparted to them Notwithstanding which Mind that is God is said also by Plato to Rule over Necessity because those Evils occasioned by the Necessity of Imperfect Beings are Over-ruled by the Divine Art Wisdom and Providence for Good Typhon and Arimanius if we may use that Language being as it were Outwitted by Osiris and Oromasdes and the worst of all Evils made in spight of their own Nature to contribute subserviently to the Good and Perfection of the Whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this must needs be acknowledged to be the greatest Art of all to be able to Bonifie Evils or Tincture them with Good And now we have made it to appear as we conceive that Plutarch had no sufficient Grounds to impute this Opinion of Two Active Perceptive Principles in the World one the Cause of Good and the other of Evil to Plato And as for the other Greek Philosophers his Pretences to make them Assertors of the same Doctrine seem to be yet more slight and frivolous For he concludes the Pythagoreans to have held Two such Substantial Principles of Good and Evil merely because they sometimes talkt of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Contrarieties and Conjugations of things such as Finite and Infinite Dextrous and Sinistrous Eaven and Odd and the like As also that Heraclitus entertain'd the same Opinion because he spake of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Versatil Harmony of the World whereby things reciprocate forwards and backwards as when a Bow is successively Intended and Remitted as likewise because he affirmed All things to flow and War to be the Father and Lord of all Moreover he resolves that Empedocles his Friendship and Contention could be no other than a Good and Evil God though we have rendred it probable that nothing else was understood thereby but an Active Spermatick Power in this Corporeal World causing Vicissitudes of Generation and Corruption Again Anaxagoras is entitled by him to the same Philosophy for no other reason but only because he made Mind and Infinite Matter Two Principles of the Universe And Lastly Aristotle himself cannot scape him from being made an Assertor of a Good and Evil God too merely because he concluded Form and Privation to be Two Principles of Natural Bodies Neither does Plutarch acquit himself any thing better as to the Sence of Whole Nations when this Doctrine is therefore imputed by him to the Chaldeans because their Astrologers supposed Two of the Planets to be Beneficent Two Maleficent and Three of a Middle Nature and to the ancient Greeks because they sacrificed not only to Jupiter Olympius but also to Hades or Pluto who was sometimes called by them the Infernal Jupiter We confess that his Interpretation of the Traditions and Mysteries of the ancient Egyptians is ingenious but yet there is no necessity for all that that by their Typhon should be understood a Substantial Evil Principle or God Self-existent as he contends For it being the manner of the ancient Pagans as shall be more fully declared afterwards to Physiologize in their Theology and to Personate all the several Things in Nature it seems more likely that these Egyptians did after that manner only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Personate that Evil and Confusion Tumult and Hurliburly Constant Alternation and Vicissitude of Generations and Corruptions which is in this Lower World though not without a Divine Providence by Typhon Wherefore the only Probability now left is that of the Persian Magi that they might indeed assert Two such Active Principles of Good and Evil as Plutarch and the Manicheans afterwards did and we must confess that there is some Probability of this because besides Plutarch Laertius affirms the same of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there are Two Principles according to the Persian Magi a Good Demon and an Evil one he seeming to Vouch it also from the Autorities of Hermippus Eudoxus and Theopompus Notwithstanding which it may very well be Questioned whether the meaning of those Magi were not herein misunderstood they perhaps intending nothing more by their Evil Demon than such a Satanical Power as we acknowledge that is not a Substantial Evil-Principle unmade and Independent upon God but only a Polity of Evil Demons in the World united together under One Head or Prince And this not only because Theodorus in Photius calls the Persian Arimanius by that very name Satanas but also because those very Traditions of theirs recorded by Plutarch himself seem very much to favour this Opinion they running after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there is a Fatal time at hand in which Arimanius the Introducer of Plagues and Famines must of necessity be utterly destroyed and when the Earth being made plain and equal there shall be but one Life and one
the Pagans did distinguish and put a difference betwixt the One Supreme Vnmade Deity and all their other Inferior Generated Gods Which we are the rather concerned to do because it is notorious that they did many times also confound them together attributing the Government of the Whole World to the Gods promiscuously and without putting any due Discrimination betwixt the Supreme and Inferior the true reason whereof seems to have been this because the supposed the Supreme God not to do all immediatly in the Government of the World but to permit much to his Inferior Ministers One Instance of which we had before in Ovid and innumerable such others might be cited out of their most sober Writers As for Example Cicero in his First Book of Laws Deorum Immortalium vi ratione potestate mente numine Natura omnis regitur The Whole Nature or Vniverse is governed by the Force Reason Power Mind and Divinity of the Immortal Gods And again in his Second Book Deos esse Dominos ac Moderatores omnium rerum eáque quae geruntur eorum geri Judicio atque Numine eosdémque optimè de genere hominum mereri qualis quisque sit quid agat quid in se admittat qua mente qua pietate Religiones colat intueri piorúmque impiorum habere Rationem à Principio Civibus suasum esse debet The Minds of Citizens ought to be first of all embued with a firm perswasion that the Gods are the Lords and Moderators of all things and that the Conduct and Management of the whole World is directed and over-ruled by their Judgement and Divine Power that they deserve the best of mankind that they behold and consider what every man is what he doth and takes upon himself with what Mind Piety and Sincerity he observes the Duties of Religion and Lastly that these Gods have a very different regard to the Pious and the Impious Now such Passages as these abounding every where in Pagan Writings it is no wonder if many considering their Theology but slightly and superficially have been led into an Error and occasioned thereby to conclude the Pagans not to have asserted a Divine Monarchy but to have imputed both the making and Governing of the World to an Aristocracy or Democracy of Co-ordinate Gods not only all Eternal but also Self-existent and Vnmade The contrary whereunto though it be already sufficiently proved yet it will not be amiss for us here in the Close to shew how the Pagans who sometimes jumble and confound the Supreme and Inferior Gods all together do notwithstanding at other times many ways distinguish betwixt the One Supreme God and their other Many Inferior Gods First therefore as the Pagans had Many Proper Names for One and the same Supreme God according to several Particular Considerations of him in respect of his several different Manifestations and Effects in the World which are oftentimes mistaken for so many Distinct Deities some supposing them Independent others Subordinate so had they also besides these other Proper Names of God according to that more full and comprehensive notion of him as the Maker of the Whole World and its Supreme Governour or the Sole Monarch of the Universe For thus the Greeks called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the Latins Jupiter and Jovis the Babylonians Belus and Bel the Persians Mithras and Oromasdes the Egyptians and Scythians according to Herodotus Ammoun and Pappaeus And Celsus in Origen concludes it to be a Matter of pure Indifferency to call the Supreme God by any of all these Names either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ammoun or Pappaeus or the like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus thinks it to be a matter of no moment whether we call the Highest and Supreme God Adonai and Sabaoth as the Jews do or Dia and Zena as the Greeks or as the Egyptians Ammoun or as the Scythians Pappaeus Notwithstanding which that Pious and Jealous Father expresseth a great deal of Zeal against Christians then using any of those Pagan Names But we will rather endure any torment saith he than confess Zeus or Jupiter to be God being well assured that the Greeks often really worship under that Name an Evil Demon who is an enemy both to God and Men. And we will rather suffer death than call the Supreme God Ammoun whom the Egyptian Enchanters thus Invoke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though the Scythians call the Supreme God Pappaeus yet we acknowledging a Supreme God will never be perswaded to call him by that name Which it pleased that Daemon who ruled over the Scythian Desert People and Language to impose Nevertheless he that shall use the Appellative name for God either in the Scythian Egyptian or any other Language which he hath been brought up in will not offend Where Origen plainly affirms the Scythians to have acknowledged One Supreme God called by them Pappaeus and Intimates that the Egyptians did the like calling him Ammoun Neither could it possibly be his intent to deny the same of the Greeks and their Zeus however his great Jealousie made him to call him here a Demon it being true in a certain sence which shall be declared afterward that the Pagans did oftentimes really worship an Evil Demon under those very Names of Zeus and Jupiter as they did likewise under those of Hammon and Pappaeus In the mean time we deny not but that both the Greeks used that word Zeus and the Latins Jupiter sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Aether Fire or Air some accordingly etymologizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence came those Formes of Speech Sub Jove and Sub Dio. And thus Cicero Jovem Ennius nuncupat ità dicens Aspice hoc sublime candens quem invocant omnes Jovem Hunc etiam Augures nostri cùm dicunt Jove Fulgente Jove Tonante dicunt enim in Coelo Fulgente Tonante c. The reason of which speeches seems to have been this because in ancient times some had supposed the Animated Heaven Ether and Air to be the Supreme Deity We grant moreover that the same words have been sometimes used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also for an Hero or Deified Man said by some to have been born in Crete by others in Arcadia And Callimachus though he were very angry with the Cretians for affirming Jupiter's Sepulchral Monument to have been with them in Crete as thereby making him Mortal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cretes semper mendaces tuum enim Rex Sepulchrum Extruxerunt Tu verò non es mortuus semper enim es Himself nevertheless as Athenagoras and Origen observe attributed the beginning of death to him when he affirmed him to have been born in Arcadia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because a Terrene Nativity is the Beginning of Death Wherefore this may
Original of all things Maximus Madaurensis a confident and resolved Pagan in St. Austin's time expressed both his own and the general sence of Pagans after this manner Equidem Vnum esse Deum Summum sine initio Naturae ceu Patrem Magnum atque Magnificum quis tam demens tam mente captus neget esse certissimum Hujus nos virtutes per Mundanum opus diffusas multis vocabulis invocamus quoniam nomen ejus cuncti proprium videlicet ignoramus Ita sit ut dum ejus quasi quaedam Membra carptim variis supplicationibus prosequimur Totum colere profectò videamur Truly that there is One Supreme God without beginning as the Great and Magnificent Father of Nature who is so mad or devoid of sense as not to acknowledge it to be most certain His Vertues diffused throughout the whole World because we know not what his proper name is we invoke under many different names Whence it comes to pass that whilst we prosecute with our supplications his as it were divided Members severally we must needs be judged to worship the whole Deity And then he concludes his Epistle thus Dii te servent per quos Eorum atque cunctorum mortalium Communem Patrem universi mortales quos terra sustinet mille modis concordi discordia venerantur The Gods keep thee by and through whom we Pagans dispersed over the whole World do worship the common Father both of those Gods and all Mortals after a thousand different manners nevertheless with an agreeing discord Longimanus likewise another more modest Pagan Philosopher upon the request of the same St. Austin declares his sence concerning the way of worshipping God and arriving to happiness to this purpose Per Minores Deos perveniri ad Summum Deum non sine Sacris Purificatoriis That we are to come to the Supreme God by the Minor or Inferior Gods and that not without Purifying Rites and Expiations he supposing that besides a vertuous and holy Life certain Religious Rites and Purifications were necessary to be observed in order to that end In which Epistle the Supreme God is also stiled by him Vnus Vniversus Incomprehensibilis Ineffabilis Infatigabilis Creator Moreover that the Pagans generally disclaim'd this Opinion of Many Vnmade Self-existent Deities appeareth plainly from Arnobius where he brings them in complaining that they were falsly and maliciously accused by some Christians as guilty thereof after this manner Frustrà nos falso calumnioso incessitis appetitis crimine tanquam inficias eamus Deum esse Majorem cùm à nobis Jupiter nominetur Optimus habeatur Maximus cúmque illi augustissimas sedes Capitolia constituerimus immania In vain do you Christians calumniate us Pagans and accuse us as if we denied One Supreme Omnipotent God though we both call him Jupiter and accompt him the Best and the Greatest having dedicated the most august seats to him the vast Capitols Where Arnobius in way of opposition shows first how perplexed and intangled a thing the Pagans Theology was their Poetick Fables of the Gods nonsensically confounding Herology together with Theology and that it was impossible that that Jupiter of theirs which had a Father and a Mother a Grandfather and a Grandmother should be the Omnipotent God Nam Deus Omnipotens mente una omnium communi mortalitatis assensu neque Genitus scitur neque novam in lucem aliquando esse prolatus nec ex aliquo tempore coepisse esse vel saeculo Ipse enim est Fons rerum Sator saeculorum ac temporum Non enim ipsa per se sunt sed ex ejus perpetuitate perpetua infinita semper continuatione procedunt At verò Jupiter ut vos fertis Patrem habet Matrem Avos Avias nunc nuper in utero matris suae formatus c. You Pagans confound your selves with Contradictions for the Omnipotent God according to the natural sence of all mankind was neither begotten or made nor ever had a Beginning in time he being the Fountain and Original of all things But Jupiter as you say had both Father and Mother Grandfathers and Grandmothers and was but lately formed in the womb and therefore he cannot be the Eternal Omnipotent God Nevertheless Arnobius afterwards considering as we suppose that these Poetick Fables were by the wiser Pagans either totally rejected or else some way or other Allegorized he candidly dismisseth this advantage which he had against them and grants their Jupiter to be the true Omnipotent Deity and consequently that same God which the Christians worshiped but from thence infers that the Pagans therefore must needs be highly guilty whilst worshipping the same God with the Christians they did hate and persecute them after that manner Sed sint ut vultis unum nec in aliquo vi numinis majestate distantes ecquid ergò injustis persequimini nos odiis Quid ut ominis pessimi nostri nominis inhorrescitis mentione st quem Deum colitis eum nos an t quid in eadem causa vobis esse contenditis familiares Deos inimicos atque infestissimos nobis Etenim si una religio est nobis vobÃsque communis cessat ira coelestium But let it be granted that as you affirm your Jupiter and the Eternal Omnipotent God are one and the same Why then do you prosecute us with unjust hatreds abominating the very mention of our names if the same God that you worship be worshipped by us or if your Religion and ours be the same why do you pretend that the Gods are propitious to you but most highly provoked and incensed against us Where the Pagans defence and reply is Sed non idcirco Dii vobis infesti sunt quòd Omnipotentem colatis Deum sed quod hominem natum quod personis infame est vilibus crucis supplicio interemptum Deum fuisse contenditis superesse adhuc creditis quotidianis supplicationibus adoratis But we do not say that the Gods are therefore displeased with you Christians because you worship the Omnipotent God but because you contend him to be a God who was not only born a mortal man but also died an ignominious death suffering as a Malefactor believing him still to survive adoring him with your dayly prayers To which Arnobius retorts in this manner Tell us now I pray you who these Gods are who take it as so great an injury indignity done to themselves that Christ should be worshipped Are they not Janus and Saturn Aesculapius and Liber Mercurius the son of Maia and the Theban or Tyrian Hercules Castor and Pollux and the like Hice ergo Christum coli à nobis accipi existimari pro Numine vulneratis acipiunt auribus obliti paulo ante sortis conditionis suae id quod sibi concessum est impertiri alteri nolunt Haec est Justititia Coelitum hoc Deorum judicium sanctum Nonne
his Book Of the Soul after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Verses that are called Orphical Besides which Cicero tells us that some imputed all the Orphick Poems to Cercops a Pythagorean and it is well known that many have attributed the same to another of that School Onomacritus who lived in the times of the Pisistratidae Wherefore we read more than once in Sextus Empiricus of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Onomacritus in the Orphicks Suidas also reports that some of the Orphick Poems were anciently ascribed to Theogneius others to Timocles others to Zopyrus c. From all which Grotius seems to have made up this Conclusion That the Pythagoricks entitled their own Books to Orpheus and Linus just in the same manner as Ancient Christians entitled theirs some to the Sibyls and others to Hermes Trismegist Implying therein that both the Orphick Poems and Doctrine owed there very Being and First Original only to the Pythagoreans But on the other side Clemens Alexandrinus affirmeth that Heraclitus the Philosopher borrowed many things from the Orphick Poems And it is certain that Plato does not only very much commend the Orphick Hymns for their Suavity and Deliciousness but also produce some Verses out of them without making any Scruple concerning their Author Cicero himself notwithstanding what he cites out of Aristotle to the contrary seems to acknowledge Orpheus for the most ancient Poet he writing thus of Cleanthes In Secundo Libro De Natura Deorum vult Orphei Musaei Hesiodi Homeri que Fabellas accomdare ad ea quae ipse de Diis Immortalibus scripserat ut etiam Veterrimi Poetae qui haec ne suspicati quidem sint Stoici fuisse videantur Cleanthes in his Second Book of the Nature of the Gods endeavours to accommodate the Fables of Orpheus Musaeus Hesiod and Homer to thâ—se very things which himself had written concerning them so that the most ancient Poets who never dream'd of any such matter are made by him to have been Stoicks Diodorus Siculus affirmeth Orpheus to have been the Author of a most excellent Poem And Justin Martyâ— Clâ—mens Alexandrinus Athenagoras and others take it for granted that Homer borrowed many Passages of his Poems from the Orphick Verses and particularly that very Beginning of his Iliads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly Jamblichus testifieth that by Most Writers Orpheus was represented as the ancientest of all the Poets adding moreover what Dialect he wrote in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Most of the Historiographers declare that Orpheus who was the ancientest of all the Poets wrote in the Dorick Dialect Which if it be true then those Orphick Fragments that now we have preserved in the Writings of such as did not Dorize must have been transformed by them out of their Native Idiom Now as concerning Herodotus who supposing Homer and Hesiod to have been the ancientest of all the Greek Poets seemed therefore to conclude the Orphick Poems to have been Pseudepigraphous himself intimates that this was but a Singular Opinion and as it were Paradox of his own the contrary thereunto being then generally received However Aristotle probably might therefore be the more inclinable to follow Herodotus in this because he had no great kindness for the Pythagorick or Orphick Philosophy But it is altogether Irrational and Absurd to think that the Pythagoricks would entitle their Books to Orpheus as designing to gain credit and authority to them thereby had there been no such Doctrine before either conteined in some ancient Monument of Orpheus or at least transmitted down by Oral Tradition from him Wherefore the Pythagoricks themselves constantly maintain that before Pythagoras his time there was not only an Orphick Cabala Extant but also Orphick Poems The Former was declared in that ancient Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or The Holy Oration if we may believe Proclus upon the Timaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Timaeus being a Pythagorean follows the Pythagorick Principles and these are the Orphick Traditions for what things Orpheus deliver'd Mystically or in arcane Allegories these Pythagoras learn'd when he was initiated by Aglaophemus in the Orphick Mysteries Pythagoras himself affirming as much in his Book called The Holy Oration Where Proclus without any doubt or scruple entitles the Book inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or The Holy Oration to Pythagoras himself Indeed several of the ancients have resolved Pythagoras to have written nothing at all as Fla. Josephus Plutarch Lucian and Porphyrius and Epigenes in Clemens Alex. affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Holy Oration was written by Cercops a Pythagorean Nevertheless Diogenes Laertius thinks them not to be in good earnest who deny Pythagoras to have written any thing and he tells us that Heraclides acknowledged this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Holy Oration for a genuine and indubitate Foetus of Pythagoras Jamblichus is also of the same opinion as the most received though confessing some to have attributed that Book to Telauges Pythagoras his Son But whoever was the Writer of this Hieros Logos whether Pythagoras himself or Telauges or Cercops it must needs be granted to be of great antiquity according to the Testimony whereof Pythagoras derived much of his Theology from the Orphick Traditions Moreover Ion Chius in his Trigrammi testified as Clemens Alexandrinus informeth us that Pythagoras himself referred some Poems to Orpheus as their Author which is also the General sence of Platonists as well as Pythagoreans Wherefore upon all accounts it seems most probable That either Orpheus himself wrote some Philosophick or Theologick Poems though certain other Poems might be also father'd on him because written in the same strain of Mystical and Allegorical Theology and as it were in the same Spirit with which this Thracian Prophet was inspired Or else at least that the Orphick Doctrine was first conveyed down by Oral Cabala or Tradition from him and afterwards for its better Preservation expressed in Verses that were imputed to Orpheus after the same manner as the Golden Verses written by Lysis were to Pythagoras And Philoponus intimates this Latter to have been Aristotle's Opinion concerning the Orphick Verses He glossing thus upon those words of Aristotle before cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristotle calls them the Reputed Orphick Verses because they seem not to have been written by Orpheus himself as the same Aristotle affirmeth in his Book of Philosophy The Doctrine and Opinions of them indeed were his but Onomacritus is said to have put them into Verse However there can be no doubt at all made but that the Orphick Verses by whomsoever Written were some of them of great antiquity they being much older than either Aristotle Plato or Herodotus as they were also had in great esteem amongst the Pagans and therefore we may very well make a judgment of the Theology of the ancient Pagans from them Now that Orpheus the Orphick Doctrine and Poems were Polytheistical is a thing
acknowledged by all Justin Martyr affirms that Orpheus asserted Three Hundred and Sixty Gods he also bestows upon him this Honourable Title if it may be so accounted of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father and First Teacher of Polytheism amongst the Greeks he supposing that Homer derived his Polytheism from him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer emulating Orpheus his Polytheism did himself therefore fabulously write of many Gods that he might not seem to dissent from his Poems whom he had so great a Veneration for With which also agreeth the Testimony of Athenagoras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orpheus first invented the very names of the Gods declaring their Generations and what was done by each of them and Homer for the most part follows him therein Indeed the whole Mythical Theology or Fables of the Gods together with the Religious Rites amongst the Greeks are commonly supposed to have owed their First Original to no other but Orpheus In which Orphick Fables not only the Things of Nature and Parts of the World were all Theologized but also all manner of Humane Passions Imperfections and Vices according to the Literal Sence attributed to the Gods Insomuch that divers of the Pagans themselves took great offence at them as for Example Isocrates who concludes that a Divine Nemesis or Vengeance was inflicted upon Orpheus for this Impiety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orpheus who was most of all guilty in this kind died a violent death Also Diog. Laertius for this Cause made a question whether he should reckon Orpheus amongst the Philosophers or no and others have Concluded that Plato ought to have banish'd Orpheus likewise out of his Commonwealth for the same reason that he did Homer which is thus expressed For not Lying well concerning the Gods And here we may take notice of the Monstrosity and Extravagancy of Orpheus his Phancy from what Diamascius and others tell us that he made one of his Principles to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Dragon having the Heads both of a Bull and a Lion and in the midst the Face of a God with Golden Wings upon his shoulders which forsooth must be an Incorporeal Deity and Hercules with which Nature called Ananche and Adrastea was associated Nevertheless the Generality of the Greekish Pagans looking upon this Orpheus not as a meer Fanciful Poet and Fabulator but as a Serious and Profound Philosopher or Mystical Theologer a Person transcendently Holy and Wise they supposed all his Fables of the Gods to be deep Mysteries and Allegories which had some Arcane and Recondite Sence under them and therefore had a high Veneration for him as one who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Athenagoras writes More truly Theologize than the rest and was indeed Divinely Inspired Insomuch that Celsus would rather have had the Christians to have taken Orpheus for a God than our Saviour Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being a man unquestionably endewed with a holy Spirit and one who also as well as the Christians Jesus died a violent death But that Orpheus notwithstanding all his Polytheism or Multiplicity of Gods acknowledged One Supreme Vnmade Deity as the Original of all things may be First Presumed from hence because those Two Most Religious Philosophick Sects the Phythagoreans and Platonists not only had Orpheus in great esteem he being commonly called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Theologer but were also thought in great measure to have owed their Theology and Philosophy to him as deriving the same from his Principles and Traditions This hath been already intimated and might be further proved Pythagoras as we are informed by Porphyrius and Jamblichus learn'd something from all these Four from the Egyptians from the Persian Magi from the Chaldeans and from Orpheus or his Followers Accordingly Syrianus makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Orphick and Pythagorick Principles to be one and the same And as we understand from Suidas the same Syrianus wrote a Book entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Harmony of Orpheus Pythagoras and Plato Proclus besides the place before cited frequently insists upon this elsewhere in his Commentary upon the Timaeus as p. 289. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is Pythagorical to follow the Orphick Genealogies For from the Orphick Tradition downward by Pythagoras was the knowledge of the Gods derived to the Greeks And that the Orphick Philosophy did really agree and symbolize with that which afterward was called Pythagorick and Platonick and was of the same strain with it may be gathered from that of Plato in his Cratylus where he speaks concerning the Etymology of the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orpheus and his followers seem to me to have given the best Etymology of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Soul is here in a state of Punishment its Body being a Prison to it wherein it is kept in custody till its Debts or Faults be expiated and is therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now these Three Philosophies the Platonick Pythagorick and Orphick symbolizing so much together it is probable that as the Platonick and Pythagorick so the Orphick likewise derived all their Gods from One Self-existent Deity Which may be further manifested from that Epitome of the Orphick Doctrine made long since by Timotheus the Chronographer in his Cosmopoeia still extant in Cedrenus and Eusebii Chronica and imperfectly set down by Suidas upon the Word Orpheus as his own or without mentioning the Authors Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First of all the Aether was made by God and after the Aether a Chaos a Dark and dreadful Night then covering all under the whole Aether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orpheus hereby signifying saith Timotheus that Night was Seniour to day or that the World had a Beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He having declared also in his Explication that there was a certain Incomprehensible Being which was the Highest and Oldest of all things and the Maker of every thing even of the Aether it self and all things under the Aether But the Earth being then invisible by reason of the Darkness a Light breaking out through the Aether illuminated the whole Creation This Light being said by him to be that Highest of all Beings before mentioned which is called also Counsel and Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use Suidas his words here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Three Names in Orpheus Light Counsel and Life declaring one and the same Force and Power of that God who is the Maker of all and who produceth all out of Nothing into Being whether Visible or Invisible To conclude with Timotheus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the same Orpheus in his Book declared that all things were made by one Godhead in Three Names and that this God is all things But that Orpheus asserted One Supreme Deity as the Original of all things is unquestionably evident from the Orphick Verses themselves of which notwithstanding before
Philosophers after Thales and before Anaxagoras were generally Atheistical And indeed from them the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Naturalists came to be often used as Synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Atheists Now these Two are here condemned by Plutarch for Two Contrary Extremes the One who resolved all into Natural and Necessary Causes that is into Matter Motion and Qualities of Bodies leaving out the Divine Cause as guilty of Atheism the other who altogether neglecting the Natural and Necessary Causes of things resolved all into the Divine Cause as it were swallowing up all into God as guilty of a kind of Fanaticism And thus we see plainly that this was one Grand Arcanum of the Orphick Cabala and the ancient Greekish Theology That God is All things Some Fanaticks of Latter Times have made God to be All in a Gross Sence so as to take away all Real Distinction betwixt God and the Creature and indeed to allow no other Being besides God they supposing the Substance of every thing and even of all Inanimate Bodies to be the very Substance of God himself and all the variety of things that is in the World to be nothing but God under several Forms Appearances and Disguizes The Stoicks anciently made God to be All and All to be God in somewhat a different way they conceiving God properly to be the Active Principle of the whole Corporeal Universe which yet because they admitted of no Incorporeal Substance they supposed together with the Passive or the Matter to make up but one and the same complete Substance And others who acknowledged God to be an Incorporeal Substance distinct from the Matter have notwithstanding made All to be God also in a certain sence they supposing God to be nothing but a Soul of the World which together with the Matter made up all into One entire Divine Animal Now the Orphick Theologers cannot be charged with making God all in that First and Grosly-Fanatick Sence as if they took away all Real Distinction betwixt God and the Creature they so asserting God to be all as that notwithstanding they allowed other things to have Distinct Beings of their own Thus much appearing from that Riddle which in the Orphick Verses was proposed by the Maker of the World to Night 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can All things be One and yet Every thing have a distinct Being of its own Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things One. or One all things seems to be the Supreme Deity or Divine Intellect as Proclus also interprets it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter who conteineth the Vniverse and All things within himself Vnitively and Intellectually according to these Orphick Oracles gives a Particular Subsistence of their own also to all the Mundane Gods and other parts of the Vniverse And this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that fore-cited Orphick Verse Every thing apart by it self the whole Produced or Created Universe with all its Variety of things in it which yet are Orphically said to be God also in a certain other sence that shall be declared afterward Nor can the Orphick Theologers be charged with making God All in the Second Stoical Sence as if they denied all Incorporeal Substance they plainly asserting as Damascius and others particularly note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Incorporeal Deity But as for the Third way it is very true that the Orphick Theologers did frequently call the World The Body of God and its Several Parts His Members making the Whole Universe to be One Divine Animal Notwithstanding which they supposed not this Animated World to be the First and Highest God but either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Hermaick or Trismegistick Writers call it The Second God or else as Numenius and others of the Platonists speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Third God the Soul thereof being as well in the Orphick as it was in the Pythagorick and Platonick Trinity but the Third Hypostasis they supposing Two other Divine Hypostases Superiour thereunto which were perfectly Secrete from Matter Wherefore as to the Supreme Deity these Orphick Theologers made Him to be All things chiefly upon the Two following Accompts First because All things coming from God they inferred that therefore they were all conteined in Him and consequently were in a certain sence Himself thus much being declared in those Orphick Verses cited by Proclus and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Apuleius thus renders Namque Sinu Occultans dulces in luminis oras Cuncta tulit sacro versans sub pectore curas The Sence whereof is plainly this That God at first Hiding or Occultly conteining all things within himself did from thence display them and bring them forth into light or distinct Beings of their own and so make the World The Second is Because the World produced by God and really existing without him is not therefore quite cut off from him nor subsists alone by it self as a Dead Thing but is still Livingly united to him essentially Dependent on him always Supported and Upheld Quickned and Enlivened Acted and Pervaded by him according to that Orphick Passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God passes through and intimately pervades All things Now it is very true that some Christian Theologers also have made God to be All according to these Latter sences as when they affirm the whole World to be nothing else but Deum Explicatum God Expanded or Vnfolded and when they call the Creatures as St. Jerom and others often do Radios Deitatis the Rays of the Deity Nay the Scripture it self may seem to give some countenance also hereunto when it tells us That Of Him and Through Him and To Him are All things which in the Orphick Theology was thus expressed God is the Beginning and Middle and End of All things That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things were made in him as in the Orphick Verses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things consist in him That In Him we Live and Move and have our Being That God doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quicken all things and that he ought to be made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All in All which supposeth him in some sence to be so Notwithstanding which this is a very Ticklish Point and easily lyable to Mistake and Abuse and as we conceive it was the mistake and abuse of this One Thing which was the Chief Ground and Original of the both Seeming and Real Polytheism not only of the Greekish and European but also of the Egyptian and other Pagans as will be more particularly declared afterwards They concluding that because God was All things and consequently All things God that therefore God ought to be Worshipped in All things that is in all the several Parts of the World and Things of Nature but especially in those Animated Intellectual Beings which are Superiour to Men.
Consentaneously whereunto they did both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theologize or Deifie all things looking upon every thing as having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something Supernatural or a kind of Divinity in it and also bestow Several Names upon God according to all the several Parts of the World and Things of Nature calling him in the Starry Heaven and Aether Jupiter in the Air Juno in the Winds Aeolus in the Sea Neptune in the Earth and Subterraneous Parts Pluto in Learning Knowledge and Invention Minerva and the Muses in War Mars in Pleasure Venus in Corn Ceres in Wine Bacchus and the like However it is unquestionably Evident from hence that Orpheus with his Followers that is the Generality of the Greekish Pagans acknowledged One Vniversal and All-comprehending Deity One that was All and consequently could not admit of Many Self-existent and Independent Deities XVIII Having treated largely concerning the Two most Eminent Polytheists amongst the ancient Pagans Zoroaster and Orpheus and clearly proved that they asserted One Supreme Deity we shall in the next place observe that the Egyptians themselves also notwithstanding their Multifarious Polytheism and Idolatry had an acknowledgment amongst them of One Supreme and Vniversal Numen There hath been some Controversie amongst Learned Men Whether Polytheism and Idolatry had their first rise from the Egyptians or the Chaldeans because the Pagan Writers for the most part give the Precedency here to the Egyptians Lucian himself who was by Birth a Syrian and a diligent enquirer into the Antiquities of his own Country affirming that the Syrians and Assyrians received their Religion and Gods first from the Egyptians and before Lucian Herodotus the Father of History reporting likewise that the Egyptians were the First that erected Temples and Statues to the Gods But whether the Egyptians or Chaldeans were the First Polytheists and Idolaters there is is no question to be made but that the Greeks and Europeans generally derived their Polytheism and Idolatry from the Egyptians Herodotus affirms in oneplace that the Greeks received their Twelve Gods from thence and in another that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Almost all the Names of the Gods came first out of Egypt into Greece In what sence this might be true of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self though the word be Originally Greekish shall be declared afterwards But it is probable that Herodotus had here a further meaning that the very Names of many of the Greekish Gods were originally Egyptian In order to the confirmation of which we shall here propound a Conjecture concerning One of them viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called otherwise by the Greeks Pallas and by the Latins Minerva For first the Greek Etymologies of this word seem to be all of them either Trifling and Frivolous or Violent and Forced Plato in his Cratylus having observed that according to the ancient Allegorical Interpreters of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind or Vnderstanding Personated and Deified conceived that the first imposers of that Name intending to signifie thereby Divine Wisdom called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Vnderstanding of God or the Knowledge of Divine things as if the Word had been at first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thence afterward transformed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But being not fully satisfied himself with this Etymology he afterwards attempts another deriving the Word from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Knowledge concerning Manners or Practical Knowledge as if it had been at first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from thence changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Others of the Greeks have deduced this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is the Property of Wisdom to collect all into One supposing that it was at first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Others would fetch it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Alpha Privative because Minerva or Wisdom though she be a Goddess yet hath nothing of Feminine Imperfection in her Others again would etymologize it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Vertue or Wisdom is of such a Noble and Generous temper as that it scorns to subject it self to any base and unworthy servitude Lastly others would derive it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirming it to have been at first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From all which uncertainty of the Greeks concerning the Etymon of this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from the Frivolousness or Forcedness of these Conjectures we may rather conclude that it was not originally Greekish but Exotical and probably according to Herodotus Egyptian Wherefore let us try whether or no we can find any Egyptian Word from whence this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be deriâ—ed Plato in his Timaeus making mention of Sais a City in Egypt where Solon sometime sojourned tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the President or Tutelar God of that City was called in the Egyptian Language Neith but in the Greek as the same Egyptians affirm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now why might not this very Egyptian word Neith by an easie inversion have been at first turned into Thien or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men commonly pronouncing Exotick words ill-favouredly and then by additional Alpha's at the beginning and end transformed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This seems much more probable than either Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any other of those Greek Etymologies before-mentioned And as the Greeks thus derived the Names of many of their Gods from the Egyptians so do the Latins seem to have done the like from this one Instance of the word Neptune which though Varro would deduce à nubendo as if it had been Nuptunus because the Sea covers and hides the Land and Scaliger with others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Washing this being the chief use of Water yet as the learned Bochart hath observed it may with greater probability be derived from the Egyptian word Nephthus Plutarch telling us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Egyptians called the Maritime parts of Land or such as border upon the Sea Nephthus Which Conjecture may be further confirmed from what the same Plutarch elsewhere write that as Isis was the Wife of Osiris so the Wife of Typhon was called Nephthus From whence one might collect that as Isis was taken sometimes for the Earth or the Goddess presiding over it so Nephthus was the Goddess of the Sea To which may be further added out of the same Writer that Nephthus was sometimes called by the Egyptians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Venus probably because Venus is said to have risen out of the Sea But whatever may be thought of these Etymological conjectures certain it is that no Nation in the world was ever accompted by the Pagans more Devout Religious and Superstitious than the Egyptians and consequently none was more Polytheistical and Idolatrous Isocrates in his Praise of Busiris gives them a
Doctrine belonging thereunto which all were not alike capable of he elsewhere observing this to be that Wisdom that St. Paul spake amongst the Perfect From whence he concludes that Celsus vainly boasted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I know all things belonging to Christianity when he was acquainted only with the exteriour Surface of it But concerning the Egyptians this was a thing most notorious and observed by sundry other Writers as for Example Clemens of Alexandria a man also well acquainted with the affairs of Egypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Egyptians do not reveal their Religious Mysteries promiscuously to all nor communicate the knowledge of Divine things to the Profane but only to those who are to succeed in the Kingdom and to such of the Priests as are judged most fitly qualified for the same upon account both of their Birth and Education With which agreeth also the Testimony of Plutarch he adding a further Confirmation thereof from the Egyptian Sphinges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When a mongst the Egyptians there is any King chosen out of the Military Order he is forthwith brought to the Priests and by them instructed in that Arcane Theology which conceals Mysterious Truths under obscure Fables and Allegories Wherefore they place Sphinges before their Temples to signifie that their Theology contained a certain Arcane and Enigmatical Wisdom in it And this meaning of the Sphinges in the Egyptian Temples is confirmed likewise by Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore do the Egyptians place Sphinges before their Temples to declare thereby that the Doctrine concerning God is Enigmatical and Obscure Notwithstanding which we acknowledge that the same Clemens gives another interpretation also of these Sphinges or Conjecture concerning them which may not be unworthy to be here read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But perhaps the meaning of those Egyptian Sphinges might be also to signifie that the Deity ought both to be Loved and Feared to be Loved as benigne and propitious to the Holy but to be Feared as inexorably just to the Impious the Sphinx being made up of the Image both of a Man and a Lion Moreover besides these Sphinges the Egyptians had also Harpocrates and Sigalions in their Temples which are thus described by the Poet QuÃque premunt vocem digitóque silentia suadent They being the Statues of Young men pressing their Lips with their Finger The meaning of which Harpocrates is thus expressed by Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Harpocrates of the Egyptians is not to be taken for an Imperfect and Infant God but for the President of mens Speech concerning the Gods that is but imperfect balbutient and inarticulate and the Regulator or Corrector of the same his Finger upon his Mouth being a Symbol of Silence and Taciturnity It is very true that some Christians have made another Interpretation of this Egyptian Harpocrates as if the meaning of it had been this That the Gods of the Egyptians had been all of them really nothing else but Mortal Men but that this was a Secret that was to be concealed from the Vulgar Which Conceit however it be witty yet is it devoid of Truth and doubtless the meaning of those Egyptian Harpocrates was no other than this That either the Supreme and Incomprehensible Deity was to be adored with Silence or not spoken of without much caution and circumspection or else that the Arcane Mysteries of Theology were not to be promiscuously communicated but concealed from the profane Vulgar Which same thing seems to have been allso signified by that yearly Feast kept by the Egyptians in honour of Thoth or Hermes when the Priests eating Honey and Figs pronounced those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truth is sweet As also by that Amulet which Isis was fabled to have worn about her the interpretation whereof was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 True speech This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Arcane and Recondite Theology of the Egyptians was concealed from the Vulgar Two manner of ways by Fables or Allegories and by Symbols or Hieroglyphicks Eusebius informs us that Porphyrius wrote a Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning the Allegorical Theology both of the Greeks and Egyptians And here by the way we may observe that this business of Allegorizing in matters of Religion had not its first and only Rise amongst the Christians but was a thing very much in use among the Pagan Theologers also and therefore Celsus in Origen commends some of the Christians for this that they could Allegorize ingeniously and handsomly It is well known how both Plutarch and Synesius Allegorized those Egyptian Fables of Isis and Osiris the one to a Philosophical the other to a Political sence And the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks which were Figures not answering to Sounds or Words but immediately representing the Objects and Conceptions of the Mind were chiefly made use of by them to this purpose to express the Mysteries of their Religion and Theology so as that they might be concealed from the prophane Vulgar For which cause the Hieroglyphick Learning of the Egyptians is commonly taken for one and the same thing with their Arcane Theology or Metaphysicks And this the Author of the Questions and Answers ad Orthodoxos tells us was anciently had in much greater esteem amongst the Egyptians than all their other Learning and that therefore Moses was as well instructed in this Hieroglyphick Learning and Metaphysical Theology of theirs as in their Mathematicks And for our parts we doubt not but that the Mensa Isiaca lately published containing so many strange and uncouth Hieroglyphicks in it was something of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Arcane Theology of the Egyptians and not meer History as some imagine Though the late confident Oedipus seem to arrogate too much to himself in pretending to such a certain and exact Interpretation of it Now as it is reasonable to think that in all those Pagan Nations where there was another Theology besides the Vulgar the principal part thereof was the Doctrine of One Supreme and Vniversal Deity the Maker of the whole World so can it not well be conceived what this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Arcane and Mysterious and Enigmatick Theology of the Egyptians so much talked of should be other than a kind of Metaphysicks concerning God as One Perfect Incorporeal Being the Original of all things We know nothing of any Moment that can be objected against this save only that which Porphyrius in his Epistle to Anebo an Egyptian Priest writeth concerning Chaeremon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chaeremon and others acknowledge nothing before this Visible and Corporeal World alledging for the countenance of their Opinion such of the Egyptians as talk of no other Gods but the Planets and those Stars that fill up the Zodiack or rise together with them their Decans and Horoscopes and Robust Princes as they call them whose names are
also inserted into their Almanacks or Ephemerides together with the times of their Risings and Settings and the Prognosticks or significations of future Events from them For he observed that those Egyptians who made the Sun the Demiurgus or Architect of the World interpreted the Stories of Isis and Osiris and all those other Religious Fables into nothing but Stars and Planets and the River Nile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and referred all things universally into Natural or Inanimate nothing into Incorporeal and Living Substances Which Passage of Porphyrius concerning Chaeremon we confess Eusebius lays great stress upon endeavouring to make advantage of it first against the Egyptians and then against the Greeks and other Pagans as deriving their Religion and Theology from them It is manifest from hence saith he that the very Arcane Theology of the Egyptians Deified nothing but Stars and Planets and acknowledged no Incorporeal Principle or Demiurgick Reason as the Cause of this Vniverse but only the Visible Sun And then he concludes in this manner See now what is become of this Arcane Theology of the Egyptians that deifies nothing but sensless Matter or Dead Inanimate Bodies But it is well known that Eusebius took all advantages possible to represent the Pagans to the worst and render their Theology ridiculous and absurd nevertheless what he here urgeth against the Egyptians is the less valuable because himself plainly contradicts it elsewhere declaring that the Egyptians acknowledged a Demiurgick Reason and Intellectual Architect of the World which consequently was the Maker of the Sun and confessing the same of the other Pagans also Now to affirm that the Egyptians acknowledged no other Deity than Inanimate Matter and the Sensless Corporeal World is not only to deny that they had any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Arcane Theology at all which yet hath been sufficiently proved but also to render them absolute Atheists For if this be not Atheism to acknowledge no other Deity besides Dead and Sensless Matter then the word hath no signification Chaeremon indeed seems to impute this Opinion not to all the Egyptians but to some of them and it is very possible that there might be some Atheists amongst the Egyptians also as well as amongst the Greeks and their Philosophers And doubtless this Chaeremon himself was a kind of Astrological Atheist for which cause we conclude that it was not Chaeremon the Stoick from whom notwithstanding Porphyrius in his Book of Abstinence citeth certain other things concerning the Egyptians but either that Chaeremon whom Strabo made use of in Egypt or else some other of that name But that there ever was or can be any such Religious Atheists as Eusebius with some others imagine who though acknowledging no Deity besides Dead and Sensless Matter notwithstanding devoutly court and worship the same constantly invoking it and imploring its assistance as expecting great Benefit to themselves thereby This we confess is such a thing as that we have not Faith enough to believe it being a sottishness and contradictious Non-sence that is not incident to humane Nature Neither can we doubt but that all the devout Pagans acknowledged some Living and Vnderstanding Deities or other nor easily believe that they ever Worshipped any Inanimate or Sensless Bodies otherwise than as some way referring to the same or as Images and Symbols of them But as for that Passage in Porphyrius his Epistle concerning Chaeremon where he only propounds doubts to Anebo the Egyptian Priest as desiring further Information from him concerning them Jamblichus hath given us a full answer to it under the person of Abammo another Egyptian Priest which notwithstanding hath not hitherto been at all taken notice of because Ficinus and Scutellius not understanding the word Chaeremon to be a Proper name ridiculously turn'd it in their Translations Optarem and Gauderem thereby also perverting the whole sence The words in the Greek MS. now in the hands of my Learned Friend Mr. Gale run thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Chaeremon and those others who pretend to write of the first Causes of the World declare only the Last and Lowest Principles as likewise they who treat of the Planets the Zodiack the Decans the Horoscopes and the Robust Princes And those things that are in the Egyptian Almanacks or Ephemerides contain the least part of the Hermaical Institutions namely the Phases and Occultations of the Stars the Increase and Decrease of the Moon and the like Astrological Matters which things have the lowest place in the Egyptian Aetiology Nor do the Egyptians resolve all things into Sensles Nature but they distinguish both the Life of the Soul and the Intellectual Life from that of Nature and that not only in our selves but also in the Vniverse they determining Mind and Reason first to have existed of themselves and so this whole World to have been made Wherefore they acknowledge before the Heaven and in the Heaven a Living Power and place pure Mind above the World as the Demiurgus and Architect thereof From which Testimony of Jamblichus who was but little Juniour to Porphyrius and Contemporary with Eusebius and who had made it his business to inform himself thoroughly concerning the Theology of the Egyptians it plainly appears that the Egyptians did not generally suppose as Chaeremon pretended concerning some of them a Sensless Inanimate Nature to be the first Original of all things but that as well in the World as in our selves they acknowledged Soul superiour to Nature and Mind or Intellect superiour to Soul this being the Demiurgus of the World But we shall have afterwards occasion more opportunely to cite other Passages out of this Jamblichus his Egyptian Mysteries to the same purpose Wherefore there is no pretense at all to suspect that the Egyptians were universally Atheists and Anarchists such as supposed no Living Understanding Deity but resolved all into Sensless Matter as the first and highest Principle But all the question is whether they were not Polyarchists such as asserted a Multitude of Understanding Deities Self-existent or Unmade Now that Monarchy was an essential part of the Arcane and True Theology of the Egyptians A. Steuchus Eugubinus and many other learned men have thought to be unquestionably evident from the Hermetick or Trismegistick Writings they taking it for granted that these are all genuine and sincere Whereas there is too much cause to suspect that there have been some Pious Frauds practised upon these Trismegistick Writings as well as there were upon the Sibylline and that either whole Books of them have been counterfeited by pretended Christians or at least several spurious and supposititious Passages here and there inserted into some of them Isaac Casaubon who was the first Discoverer has taken notice of many such in that first Hermetick Book entituled Paemander some also in the Fourth Book inscribed Crater and some in the Thirteenth call'd the Sermon in the Mount concerning Regeneration which may justly render those Three whole Books or at least
this Land of Egypt formerly the most holy seat of the Religious Temples of the Gods shall be every where full of the Sepulchers of Dead men The sence whereof is thus expressed by St. Austin Hoc videtur dolere quod Memoriae Martyrum nostrorum Templis eorum Delubrisque succederent ut viz. qui haec legunt animo à nobis averso atque perverso putent à Paganis Deos cultos fuisse in Templis à nobis autem coli Mortuos in Sepulchris He seems to lament this that the Memorials of our Martyrs should succeed in the place of their Temples that so they who read this with a perverse mind might think that by the Pagans the Gods were worshipped in Temples but by us Christians Dead men in Sepulchers Notwithstanding which this very thing seems to have had its accomplishment too soon after as may be gather'd from these Passages of Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now the Martyrs have utterly abolished and blotted out of the minds of men the memory of those who were formerly called Gods And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Our Lord hath now brought his Dead that is his Martyrs into the room and place that is the Temples of the Gods whom he hath sent away empty and bestowed their honour upon these his Martyrs For now in stead of the Festivals of Jupiter and Bacchus are celebrated those of Peter and Paul Thomas and Sergius and other holy Martyrs Wherefore this being so shrewd and plain a Description in the Asclepian Dialogue of what really happened in the Christian World it may seem suspicious that it was rather a History written after the Event than a Prophecy before it as it pretends to be It very much resembling that complaint of Eunapius Sardianus in the Life of Aedesius when the Christians had demolished the Temple of Serapis in Egypt seizing upon its Riches and Treasure That instead of the Gods the Monks then gave Divine honour to certain vile and flagitious persons deceased called by the name of Martyrs Now if this be granted this Book must needs be Counterfeit and supposititious Nevertheless St. Austin entertained no such Suspicion concerning this Asclepian Passage as if it had been a History written after the Fact that is after the Sepulchers and Memorials of the Martyrs came to be so frequented he supposing this Book to be unquestionably of greater Antiquity Wherefore he concludes it to be a Prophecy or Prediction made instinctu fallacis Spiritûs by the Instinct or Suggestion of some Evil Spirit they sadly then presaging the ruine of their own Empire Neither was this Asclepian Dialogue only ancienter than St. Austin but it is cited by Lactantius Firmianus also under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Perfect Oration as was said before and that as a thing then reputed of great Antiquity Wherefore in all probability this Asclepian Passage was written before that described Event had its accomplishment And indeed if Antoninus the Philosopher as the forementioned Eunapius writes did predict the very same thing that after his decease that magnificent Temple of Serapis in Aegypt together with the rest should be demolished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Temples of the Gods turned into Sepulchers why might not this Egyptian or Trismegistick Writer receive the like Inspiration or Tradition Or at least make the same Conjucture But there is yet another Objection made against the Sincerity of this Asclepian Dialogue from Lactantius his citing a Passage out of it for the Second Person in the Trinity the Son of God Hermes in eo Libro saith Lactantius qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inscribitur his usus est verbis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which we find in Apuleius his Latin Translation thus rendered Dominus omnium Conformator quem rectè Deum dicimus à se Secundum Deum fecit qui videri sentiri possit quem Secundum Deum sensibilem ita dixerim non ideo quod ipse sentiat de hoc enim an ipse sentiat annon alio dicemus tempore sed eo quod videntium sensus incurrit Quoniam ergo hunc fecit ex se Primum à se Secundum visusque est ei pulcher utpote qui est omnium bonitate plenissimus amavit eum ut Divinitatis suae Prolem for so it ought to be read and not Patrem it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek The Lord and Maker of all whom we rightly call God when he had made a Second God Visible and Sensible I say sensible not actively because himself hath Sense for concerning this whether he have Sense or no we shall speak elsewhere but passively because he incurrs into our Senses this being his First and Only Production seemed both beautiful to him and most full of all good and therefore he loved him dearly as his own Offspring Which Lactantius and after him St. Austin understanding of the Perfect Word of God or Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of it as a Testimony against the Pagans for the Confirmation of Christianity they taking it for granted that this Hermaick Book was genuinely Egyptian and did represent the Doctrine of the ancient Hermes Trismegist But Dionysius Petavius and other later Writers understanding this place in the same sence with Lactantius and St. Austin have made a quite different use of it namely to inferr from thence that this Book was Spurious and Counterfeited by some Christian. To which we reply First that if this Hermaick Writer had acknowledged an Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word of God and called it a Second God and the Son of God he had done no more in this than Philo the Jew did who speaking of this same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresly calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Second God and the First Begotten Son of God Notwithstanding which those Writings of Philo's are not at all suspected And Origen affirms that some of the Ancient Philosophers did the like Multi Philosophorum Veterum Vnum esse Deum qui cuncta crearit dixerunt atque in hoc consentiunt Legi Aliquanti autem hoc adjiciunt quod Deus cuncta per Verbum suum fecerit regat Verbum Dei sit quo cuncta moderentur in hoc non solùm Legi sed Evangelio quoque consona scribunt Many of the old Philosophers that is all besides a few Atheistick ones have said that there is One God who created all things and these agree with the Law but some add further that God made all things by his Word and that it is the Word of God by which all things are governed and these write consonantly not only to the Law but also to the Gospel But whether Philo derived this Doctrine from the Greek Philosophers or from the Egyptians and Hermes Trismegist he being an Alexandrian may well be a Question For St. Cyril doth indeed cite several Passages
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Parmenides in Plato speaking more exactly distinguishes Three Divine Vnities Subordinate The First of that which is Perfectly and most Properly One the Second of that which was called by him One-Many the Third of that which is thus expressed One and Many So that Parmenides did also agree in this acknowledgment of a Trinity of Divine or Archical Hypostases Which Observation of Plotinus is by the way the best Key that we know of for that Obscure Book of Plato's Parmenides Wherefore Parmenides thus asserting a Trinity of Divine Hypostases it was the First of those Hypostases that was properly called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One the Vniverse or all That is One most Simple Being the Fountain and Original of all And the Second of them which is a Perfect Intellect was it seems by him called in way of distinction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One-Many or One-All Things By which All Things are meant the Intelligible Ideas of Things that are all conteined together in One Perfect Mind And of those was Parmenides to be understood also when he affirmed That all Things did stand and nothing flow not of Singular and Sensible Things which as the Heracliticks rightly affirmed do indeed all flow but of the Immediate Objects of the Mind which are Eternal and Immutable Aristotle himself acknowledging that no Generation nor Corruption belongeth to them since there could be no Immutable and Certain Science unless there were some Immutable Necessary and Eternal Objects of it Wherefore as the same Aristotle also declares the true Meaning of that Controversie betwixt the Heracliticks and Parmenideans Whether All Things did flow or Some things stand was the same with this Whether there were any other Objects of the Mind besides Singular Sensibles that were Immutable and consequently Whether there were any such thing as Science or Knowledge which had a Firmitude and Stability in it For those Heracliticks who contended that the only Objects of the Mind were Singular and Sensible things did with good reason consequently thereupon deny that there was any Certain and Constant Knowledge since there can neither be any Definition of Singular Sensibles as Aristotle writes nor any Demonstration concerning them But the Parmenideans on the contrary who maintained the Firmitude and Stability of Science did as reasonably conclude thereupon that besides Singular Sensibles there were other Objects of the Mind Vniversal Eternal and Immutable which they called the Intelligible Ideas all originally conteined in One Archetypal Mind or Understanding and from thence participated by Inferiour Minds and Souls But it must be here acknowledged that Parmenides and the Pythagoreans went yet a step further and did not only suppose those Intelligible Ideas to be the Eternal and Immutable Objects of all Science but also as they are contained in the Divine Intellect to be the Principles and Causes of all other things For thus Aristotle declares their Sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Ideas are the Causes of all other things and the Essence of all other things below is imparted to them from the Ideas as the Ideas themselves derive their Essence from the First Vnity Those Ideas in the Divine Understanding being look'd upon by these Philosophers as the Paradigms and Patterns of all Created things Now these Ideas being frequently called by the Pythagoreans Numbers we may from hence clearly understand the Meaning of that seemingly monstrous Paradox or puzzling Griphus of theirs that Numbers were the Causes and Principles of all things or that All things were made out of Numbers it signifying indeed no more than this that All things were made from the Ideas of the Divine Intellect called Numbers which themselves also were derived from a Monad or Unity Aristotle somewhere intimating this very account of that Assertion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Numbers were the Causes of the Essence of other things namely because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ideas were Numbers Though we are not ignorant how the Pythagoreans made also all the Numbers within the Decad to be Symbols of Things But besides these Two Divine Hypostases already mentioned Parmenides seems to have asserted also a Third which because it had yet more Alterity for distinction sake was called by him neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One the Vniverse or All nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One-All Things but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and All things and this is taken by Plotinus to be the Eternal Psyche that actively produceth All Things in this Lower World according to those Divine Ideas But that Parmenides by his One-All Immovable really understood nothing else but the Supreme Deity is further unquestionably evident from those Verses of his cited by Simplicius but not taken notice of by Stephanus in his Poesis Philosophica of which we shall only set down some few here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In which together with those that follow the Supreme Deity is plainly described as One Single Solitary and most Simple Being Unmade or Self-existent and Necessarily Existing Incorporeal and devoid of Magnitude altogether Immutable or Unchangeable whose Duration therefore was very different from that of ours and not in a way of Flux or Temporary Succession but a Constant Eternity without either Past or Future From whence it may be observed that this Opinion of a Standing Eternity different from that Flowing Succession of Time is not so Novel a Thing as some would perswade nor was first excogitated by Christian Writers Schoolmen or Fathers it being at least as old as Parmenides from whom it was also afterwards received and entertained by the best of the other Pagan Philosophers however it hath been of late so much decried not only by Atheistical Writers but other Precocious and Conceited Wits also as Non-sence and Impossibility It is well known that Melissus held forth the very same Doctrine with Parmenides of One Immovable that was All which he plainly affirmed to be Incorporeal likewise as Parmenides did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melissus also declared that his One Ens must needs be devoid of Body because if it had any Crassities in it it would have Parts But the only Difference that was between them was this that Parmenides called this One Immovable that was All 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Finite or Determined but Melissus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infinite Which Difference notwithstanding was in Words only there being none at all as to the reality of their Sence whilst each of them endeavoured in a different way to set forth the greatest Perfection of the Deity there being an Equivocation in those words Finite and Infinite and both of them signifying in one sence Perfection but in another Imperfection And the Disagreeing Agreement of these two Philosophers with one another Parmenides and Melissus as
was for his free and open condemning those Traditions concerning the Gods wherein Wicked Dishonest and Unjust Actions were imputed to them For when Euthyphro having accused his own Father as guilty of Murther meerly for committing a Homicide into prison who hapned to die there would justifie himself from the examples of the Gods namely Jupiter and Saturn because Jupiter the Best and Justest of the Gods had committed his Father Saturn to Prison for devouring his sons as Saturn himself also had castrated his Father Caelius for some miscarriages of his Socrates thus bespeaks him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Is not this the very thing O Euthyphro for which I am accused namely because when I hear any one affirming such matters as these concerning the Gods I am very loath to believe them and stick not Publickly to declare my dislike of them And can you O Euthyphro in good earnest think that there are indeed Wars and Contentions amongst the Gods and that those other things were also done by them which Poets and Painters commonly impute to them such as the Peplum or Veil of Minerva which in the Panathenaicks is with great pomp and ceremony brought into the Acropolis is embroidered all over with Thus we see that Socrates though he asserted one Supreme Deity yet he acknowledged notwithstanding other Inferiour created Gods together with the rest of the Pagans honouring and worshipping them only he disliked those Poetick Fables concerning them believed at that time by the Vulgar in which all manner of Unjust and Immoral Actions were Fathered on them which together with the Envy of many was the only true reason why he was then accused of Impiety and Atheism It hath been also affirmed by many that Plato really asserted One only God and no more and that therefore whensoever he speaks of Gods Plurally he must be understood to have done this not according to his own Judgment but only in a way of Politick Compliance with the Athenians and for fear of being made to drink poyson in like manner as Socrates was In confirmation of which opinion there is also a Passage cited out of that Thirteenth Epistle of Plato's to Dionysius wherein he gives this as a Mark whereby his Serious Epistles and such as were written according to the true sence of his own mind might by his friends be distinguished from those which were otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When I begin my Epistles with God then may you conclude I write seriously but not so when I begin with Gods And this place seems to be therefore the more Authentick because it was long since produced by Eusebius to this very purpose namely to prove that Plato acknowledged One Only God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that Plato really acknowledged One only God however in compliance with the Language of the Greeks he often spake of Gods Plurally from that Epistle of his to Dionysius wherein he gives this Symbol or Mark whereby he might be known to write seriously namely when he began his Epistles with God and not with Gods Notwithstanding which we have allready manifested out of Plato's Timaeus that he did in good earnest assert a Plurality of Gods by which Gods of his are to be understood Animated or Intellectual Beings Superiour to Men to whom there is an Honour and Worship from men due He therein declaring not only the Sun and Moon and Stars but also the Earth it self as Animated to be a God or Goddess For though it be now read in our Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Earth was the Oldest of all the Bodies within the Heavens yet it is certain that anciently it was read otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Oldest of the Gods not only from Proclus and Cicero but also from Laertius writing thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though Plato 's Gods were for the most part Fiery yet did he suppose the Earth to be a God or Goddess too affirming it to be the Oldest of all the Gods within the Heavens Made or Created to distinguish day and night by its Diurnal Circumgyration upon its own Axis in the Middle or Centre of the World For Plato when he wrote his Timaeus acknowledged only the Diurnal Motion of the Earth though afterwards he is said to have admitted its Annual too And the same might be further evinced from all his other writings but especially his Book of Laws together with his Epinomis said to have been written by him in his old age in which he much insists upon the Godships of the Sun Moon and Stars and complains that the young Gentlemen of Athens were then so much infected with that Anaxagorean Doctrine which made them to be nothing but Inanimate Stones and Earth as also he approves of that then vulgarly received Custom of Worshipping the Rising and Setting Sun and Moon as Gods to which in all probability he conformed himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prostrations and Adorations that are used both by the Greeks and all Barbarians towards the Rising and Setting Sun and Moon As well in their Prosperities as Adversities declare them to be unquestionably esteemed Gods Wherefore we cannot otherwise conclude but that this Thirteenth Epistle of Plato to Dionysius though extant it seems before Eusebius his time yet was Supposititious and counterfeit by some Zealous but Ignorant Christian. As there is accordingly a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Brand of Bastardy prefixed to it in all the Editions of Plato's Works However though Plato acknowledged and worshiphed Many Gods yet is it undeniably evident that he was no Polyarchist but a Monarchist an assertor of One Supreme God the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Self-originated Being the maker of the Heaven and Earth and of all those other Gods For first it is plain that according to Plato the Soul of the whole World was not it self Eternal much less Self-existent but Made or produced by God in time though indeed before its Body the World from these words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God did not fabricate or make the Soul of the world in the same order that we now treat concerning it that is After it as Junior to it but that which was to rule over the world as its Body being more excellent he made it First and Seniour to the same Upon which account Aristotle quarrels with Plato as contradicting himself in that he affirmed the Soul to be a Principle and yet supposed it not to be Eternal but Made together with the Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither is it possible for Plato here to extricate himself who sometimes declares the Soul to be a Principle as that which Moves it self and yet affirms it again not to be Eternal but made together with the Heaven For which cause some Platonists conclude that Plato asserted a Double Psyche one the Third Hypostasis of his Trinity and Eternal the other Created in Time together with the World
glomeravit in Orbes In semet reditura meat Mentemque Profundam Circuit simili convertit Imagine Coelum Wherefore as well according to Plato's Hypothesis as Aristotle's it may be affirmed of the Supreme Deity in the same Boetius his Language that Stabilisque manens dat cuncta Moveri Being it self Immovable it causeth all other things to Move The Immediate Efficient Cause of which Motion also no less according to Aristotle than Plato seems to have been a Mundane Soul however Aristotle thought not so fit to make this Soul a Principle in all Probability because he was not so well assured of the Incorporiety of Souls as of Minds or Intellects Nevertheless this is not the only thing which Aristotle imputed to his First and Highest Immovable Principle or the Supreme Deity its turning Round of the Primum Mobile and that no otherwise than as being Loved or as the Final Cause thereof as Proclus supposed but he as well as Anaxagoras asserted it to be also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Cause of Well and Fit or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that without which there could be no such thing as Well that is no no Order Aptitude Proportion and Harmony in the Universe He declaring excellently that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnless there were something else in the world besides Sensibles there could be neither Beginning nor Order in it but one thing would be the Principle of another infinitly or without end and again in another place already cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not at all likely that either Fire or Earth or any such Body should be the Cause of that Well and Fit that is in the World nor can so Noble an Effect as this be reasonably imputed to Chance or Fortune Wherefore himself agreeably with Anaxagoras concludes that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Mind which is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Cause of Well and Right and accordingly does he frequently call the Supreme Deity by that Name He affirming likewise that the Order Pulchritude and Harmony of the whole World dependeth upon that One Highest and Supreme Being in it after the same manner as the Order of an Army dependeth upon the General or Emperour who is not for the Order but the Order for him Which Highest Being of the Universe is therefore called by him also conformably to Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Separate Good of the World in way of distinction from that Intrinsick or Inherent Good of it which is the Order and Harmony it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is to be considered also What is the Good and Best of the Vniverse Whether its own Order only or Something Separate and existing by it self Or rather Both of them together As the Good of an Army consisteth both in its Order and likewise in its General or Emperor but principally in this Latter because the Emperor is not for the Order of the Army but the Order of the Army is for him for all things are coordered together with God and respectively to him Wherefore since Aristotle's Supreme Deity by what name soever called whether Mind or Good is the proper Efficient Cause of all that Well and Fit that is in the Universe of all the Order Pulchritude and Harmony thereof it must needs be granted that besides its being the Final Cause of Motion or its Turning round the Heavens by being Loved it was also the Efficient Cause of the Whole Frame of Nature and System of the World And thus does he plainly declare his Sence where he applauds Anaxagoras for maintaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Mind is the Cause not only of all Order but also of the whole World and when himself positively affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that from such a Principle as this depends the Heaven and Nature Where by Heaven is meant the whole World and by Nature that Artificial Nature of his before insisted on which doth nothing in vain but always acteth for Ends Regularly and is the Instrument of the Divine Mind He also somewhere affirmeth that if the Heavens or World were Generated that is Made in Time so as to have had a Beginning then it was certainly Made not by Chance and Fortune but by such an Artificial Nature as is the Instrument of a Perfect Mind And in his Physicks where he contends for the Worlds Ante-Eternity he concludes nevertheless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Mind together with Nature must of necessity be the Cause of this Whole Vniverse For though the World were never so much Coeternal with Mind yet was it in order of Nature after it and Juniour to it as the Effect thereof himself thus generously resolving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that though some that is the Atheists affirm the Elements to have been the First Beings yet it was the most reasonable thing of all to conclude that Mind was the Oldest of All things and Seniour to the World and Elements and that according to Nature it had a Princely and Sovereign Dominion over all Wherefore we think it now sufficiently evident that Aristotle's Supreme Deity does not only move the Heavens as being Loved or is the Final Cause of Motion but also was the Efficient Cause of this Whole Mundane System framed according to the Best Wisdom and after the Best manner Possible For perhaps it may not be amiss here to observe That God was not called Mind by Aristotle and those other ancient Philosophers according to that Vulgar Sence of many in these days of ours as if he were indeed an Vnderstanding or Perceptive Being and that perfectly Omniscient but yet nevertheless such as acted all things Arbitrarilily being not determined by any Rule or Nature of Goodness but only by his own Fortuitous Will For according to those ancient Philosophers that which acts without respect to Good would not so much be accounted Mens as Dementiae Mind as Madness or Folly and to impute the Frame of Nature or System of the World together with the Government of the same to such a Principle as this would have been judg'd by them all one as to impute them to Chance or Fortune But Aristotle and those other Philosophers who called the Supreme God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Mind understood thereby that which of all things in the whole world is most opposite to Chance Fortune and Temerity that which is regulated by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Well and Fit of every thing if it be not rather the very Rule Measure and Essence of Fitness it self that which acteth all for Ends and Good and doth every thing after the Best manner in order to the Whole Thus Socrates in that place before cited out of Plato's Phaedo interprets the Meaning of that Opinion That Mind made the World and was the Cause of all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That therefore every thing might be concluded to have been disposed of after the Best Manner possible
yet they were all Subject to One Supreme Solitary and Independent Deity But however though these Stoicks thus unquestionably asserted One Sole Independent and Vniversal Numen the Monarch over the whole World yet did they notwithstanding together with the other Pagans acknowledge a Plurality of Gods they concluding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That all things were full of Gods and Demons And so far were they from falling short of the other Pagans as to this Polytheism or Multiplicity of Gods that they seem rather to have surpassed and outstripped them therein Plutarch making mention of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their So great Multitude of Gods and affirming them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have filled the whole Heaven Earth Air and Sea with Gods Nevertheless they plainly declare that all this their Multiplicity of Gods One only excepted was Generated or Created in time by that One called Zeus or Jupiter who was not only the Spermatick Reason but also the Soul and Mind of the whole Universe and who from Himself produced the World and those Gods out of Non-existence into Being And not only so but that also in the Successive Conflagrations they are all again Resolved and Swallowed up into that One. Thus Plutarch in his Defect of Oracles writing of the Mortality of Demons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We know the Stoicks to maintain this Opinion not only concerning Demons but also the Gods themselves that they are Mortal For though they own such a Multitude of Gods yet do they acknowledge only one of them Eternal and Incorruptible affirming concerning all the rest that as they were made in time so they shall be again Corrupted and Destroyed Plutarch himself there defends the Mortality of Daemons but this only as to their Corporeal Part that they die to their present Bodies and transmigrate into others their Souls in the mean time remaining Immortal and Incorruptible but the Stoicks maintain'd the same as well concerning Gods as Daemons and that in such a manner as that their very Souls Lives and Personalities should be utterly extinguish'd and Destroyed To the same purpose Plutarch again writeth in his Book of Common Notions against the Stoicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysippus and Cleanthes having filled the whole Heaven Earth Air and Sea with Gods leave not One of these their so Many Gods Incorruptible nor Eternal save Jupiter only into whom they consume all the rest thereby making him to be a Helluo and Devourer of Gods which is as bad as if they should affirm him to be Corruptible it arguing as much Imperfection for one to be Nourished and Preserved by the Consumption of other things into him as for himself to die Now this is not only gathered by way of Consequence from the other Principles of the Stoicks but it is a thing which they expresly assert and with a loud voice proclaim in all their writings concerning the Gods Providence Fate and Nature that all the Gods were Generated or Made in time and that they shall be all destroyed by Fire they supposing them to be Meliable as if they were Waxen or Leaden things This indeed is Essential to the Stoical Doctrine and from their Principles Inseparable and Unavoidable forasmuch as they held all to be Body and that in the Successive Conflagrations all Corporeal Systems and Compages shall be dissolved by Fire so that no other Deity can then possibly remain safe and Untouch'd save Jupiter alone the Fiery Principle of the Universe Animated or Intellectual Here therefore there is a considerable Difference to be observed betwixt these Stoicks and the other Pagan Theists that whereas the others for the most part acknowledged their Gods to have been made in Time by One Supreme Vniversal Numen but yet nevertheless to be Immortal and to continue to Eternity The Stoical Pagans maintained that all their other Gods save Jupiter alone were not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as should be as well Corrupted as they were Generated and this so also as that their very Personalities should be utterly abolished and annihilated all the Stoical Gods in the Conflagration being as it were Melted and Confounded into One. Wherefore during the Intervals of the Successive Conflagrations the Stoicks all agreed that there is no more than One God Zeus or Jupiter left alone there being then indeed nothing else besides himself who afterwards produceth the whole Mundane System together with All the Gods out of himself again Chrysippus in Plutarch affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That as Jupiter and the World may be resembled to a Man so may Providence be to the Soul When therefore there shall be a Conflagration Jupiter of all the Gods being alone Incorruptible and then remaining will retire and withdraw himself into Providence and so both together remain in that same Ethereal Substance Where notwithstanding Jupiter and Providence are really but One and the same thing And Seneca writeth thus concerning the Life of a Wise man in Solitude Qualis futura est Vita Sapientis si sine amicis relinquatur in custodiam conjectus aut in desertum littus ejectus Qualis est Jovis cum Resoluto mundo DIIS IN VNVM CONFVSIS paulisper cessante Natura acquiescit sibi Cogitationibus suis traditus If you ask what would be the Life of a Wise man either in a Prison or Desert I answer the same with that of Jupiter when the World being resolved and the GODS all CONFOVNDED into ONE and the Course of Nature ceasing he resteth in himself conversing with his own Cogitations Arrianus his Epictetus likewise speaking of the same thing Ironically introduces Jupiter bemoaning himself in the Conflagration as now left quite alone after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas I am now left all alone I have neither Juno nor Minerva nor Apollo with me neither Brother nor Son nor Nephew nor Kinsman neither God nor Goddess to keep me company He adding also according to the sence of the Stoicks that in all these successive Conflagrations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter being left alone converseth only with himself and resteth in himself considering his own Government and being entertained with thoughts becoming himself And thus have we made it unquestionably evident that the Stoicks acknowledged only One Independent and Self-existent Deity One Vniversal Numen which was not only the Creator of all the other Gods but also in certain Alternate Vicissitudes of time the Decreator of them he then swallowing them up and devouring them all into himself as he had before produced them together with the World out of himself It is granted that these Stoicks as well as the other Pagans did Religiously Worship More Gods than One that is More Vnderstanding Bâ—ings Superiour to Men. For it was Epictetus his own Exhortation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pray to the Gods And the same Philosopher thus describeth the Disposition of a Person Rightly Affected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Dico igitur Providentiâ Deorum Mundum omnes Mundi partes initio constitutas esse omni tempore administrari yet unquestionably Cicero forgat himself herein and rather spake the Language of some other Pagans who together with the Generation of the World held indeed a Plurality of Eternal though not Independent Deites than of the Stoicks who asserted One only Eternal God and supposed in the Reiterated Conflagrations all the Gods to be Melted and Confounded into One so that Jupiter being then left alone must needs make up the World again as also all those other Gods out of himself And thus does Zeno in Laertius describe the Cosmopoeia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God at First being alone by himself converted the Fiery Substance of the World by degrees into Water that is into a Crasser Chaos out of which Water himself afterwards as the Spermatick Reason of the World formed the Elements and whole Mundane System And Cicero himself elsewhere in his De Legibus attributes the first Original of Mankind cautiously not to the Gods in Common but to the Supreme God only Hoc Animal Providum c. quem vocamus Hominem praeclara quadam conditione Generatum esse à SVMMO DEO and this rather according to the Sence of the Stoicks than of the Platonists whose Inferiour Generated Gods also being first made were supposed to have had a stroke in the Fabrefaction of Mankind and other Animals Thus Epictetus plainly ascribes the making of the whole World to God or the One Supreme Deity where he mentions the Galileans that is the Christians their Contempt of Death though imputing it only to Custom in them and not to right Knowledge as M. Antoninus likewise ascribes the same to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer Obstinacy of Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can some be so affected out of Madness and the Galileans out of Custom and can none attain thereunto by Reason and true Knowledge namely because God made all things in the World and the whole World it self Perfect and Vnhinderable but the parts thereof for the use of the Whole so that the Parts ought therefore to yield and give place to the whole Thus does he again elsewhere demand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Who made the Sun Who the Fruits of the Earth Who the Seasons of the Year Who the agreeable Fitness of things Wherefore thou having received all from another even thy very self dost thou murmur and complain against the Donor of them if he take away any one thing from thee Did he not bring thee into the World shew thee the Light bestow Sense and Reason upon the Now the Sun was the chief of the Inferiour Stoical Gods and therefore he being made by another all the Rest of their Gods must needs be so too And thus is it plainly expressed in this following Citation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any one could be throughly sensible of this that we are all made by God and that as Principal Parts of the World and that God is the Father both of Men and Gods he would never think meanly of himself knowing that he is the Son of Jupiter also Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is plainly put for the Supreme God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Inferiour Gods only Again he thus attributes the Making of Man and Government of the whole World to God or Jupiter only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God made all men to this End that they might be happy and as became him who had a Fatherly care of us he placed our Good and Evil in those things which are in our own power And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Things would not be well governed if Jupiter took no care of his own Citizens that they also might be happy like himself And that these Stoicks did indeed Religiously Worship and Honour the Supreme God above all their other Gods may appear from sundry Instances As first from their acknowledging him to be the Soveraign Legislator and professing Subjection and Obedience to his Laws accounting this to be their Greatest Liberty Thus Epictetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man hath power over me I am made free by God by becoming his Subject I know his Commandments and no man can bring me under bondage to himself And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These things would I be found employing my self about that I may be able to say to God Have I transgressed any of thy Commandments have I used my Faculties and Anticipations or Common Notions otherwise than thou requiredst Again from their acknowledging Him to be the Supreme Governour of the whole World and the Orderer of all things in it by his Fate and Providence and their professing to submit their Wills to his Will in every thing Epictetus somewhere thus bespeaks the Supreme God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did I ever complain of thy Government I was sick when thou wouldst have me to be and so are others but I was so willingly I was poor also at thy appointment but Rejoycing I never bore any Magistracy or had any Dignity because thou wouldst not have me and I never desired it Didst thou ever see me the more Dejected or Melancholy for this Have I appeared before thee at any time with a Discontented Countenance Was I not always prepared and ready for whatsoever thou requiredst Wilt thou now have me to depart out of this Festival Solemnity I am ready to go and I render thee all thanks for that thou hast honoured me so far as to let me keep the Feast with thee and behold thy works and observe thy Oeconomy of the world Let Death seize upon me no otherwise employed than thus thinking and writing of such things He likewise exhorts others after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dare to lift up thine eyes to God and say Vse me hereafter to whatsoever thou pleasest I agree and am of the same mind with thee indifferent to all things I refuse nothing that shall seem good to thee Lead me whither thou pleasest Let me act what part thou wilt either of a Publick or Private person of a Rich man or a Begger I will apologize for thee as to all these things before men And I will also shew the Nature of every one of them The same is likewise manifest from their Pretensions to look to God and referr all to him expecting aid and assistance from him and placing their Confidence in him Thus also Epictetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My design is this to render you free and undisturbed always looking at God as well in every small as greater Matter Again the same Stoick concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A man will never be able otherwise to expel Grief Fear Desire Envy c. than by looking to God alone
World especially since in so many other places of his Writings he plainly owns a Divine Monarchy We pass from M. Tullius Cicero to M. Terentius Varro his Equal a man famous for Polymathy or Multifarious Knowledge and reputed unquestionably though not the most Eloquent yet the most Learned of all the Romans at least as to Antiquity He wrote One and Forty Books concerning the Antiquities of Humane and Divine things wherein he transcended the Roman Pontifices themselves and discovered their Ignorance as to many points of their Religion In which Books he distinguished Three Kinds of Theology the First Mythical or Fabulous the Second Physical or Natural and the Last Civil or Popular The First being most accomodate to the Theatre or Stage the Second to the World or the Wiser men in it the Third to Cities or the Generality of the Civilized Vulgar Which was agreeable also to the Doctrine of Scaevola that Learned Pontifex concerning Three Sorts of Gods Poetical Philosophical and Political As for the Mythical and Poetical Theology it was censured after this manner by Varro In eo sunt multa contra Dignitatem Naturam immortalium ficta In hoc enim est ut Deus alius ex capite alius ex femore sit alius ex guttis sanguinis natus In hoc ut Dii furati sint ut adulteraverint ut servierint homini Denique in hoc omnia Diis attribuuntur quae non modo in hominem sed etiam in contemptissimum hominem cadere possunt That according to the Literal Sence it conteined many things contrary to the Dignity and Nature of Immortal Beings The Genealogy of one God being derived from the Head of another from the Thigh of another from drops of Blood Some being represented as Thieves others as Adulterers c. and all things attributed to the Gods therein that are not only incident to men but even to the most contemptible and flagitious of them And as for the Second the Natural Theology which is the True this Varro conceived to be above the capacity of Vulgar Citizens and that therefore it was expedient there should be another Theology calculated more accommodate for them and of a middle kind betwixt the Natural and the Fabulous which is that which is called Civil For he affirmed Multa esse vera quae vulgo scire non sit utile quaedam quae tametsi falsa sint aliter existimare populum expediat that there were many things true in Religion which it was not convenient for the Vulgar to know and again some things which though false yet it was expedient they should be believed by them As Scaevola the Roman Pontifex in like manner would not have the Vulgar to know that the True God had neither Sex nor Age nor Bodily Members Expedire igitur existimat saith St. Austin of him falli in Religione Civitates quod dicere etiam in Libris Rerum Divinarum ipse Varro non dubitat Scaevola therefore judgeth it expedient that Cities should be deceived in their Religion which also Varro himself doubteth not to affirm in his Books of Divine Things Wherefore this Varro though disapproving the Fabulous Theology yet out of a pious design as he conceived did he endeavour to assert as much as he could the Civil Theology then received amongst the Romans and to vindicate the same from Contempt yet nevertheless so as that Si eam Civitatem novam constitueret ex Naturae potiùs Formulâ Deos Deorum nomina se fuisse dedicaâ—urum non dubitet confiteri If he were to constitute a New Rome himself he doubts not to confess but that he would dedicate Gods and the Names of Gods after another manner more agreeably to the Form of Nature or Natural Theology Now what Varro's own sence was concerning God he freely declared in those Books of Divine Things namely That he was the Great Soul and Mind of the whole World Thus St. Austin Hi soli Varroni videntur animadvertisse quid esset Deus qui crediderunt cum esse Animam Motu ac Ratione mundum gubernantem These alone seem to Varro to have understood what God is who believed him to be a Soul governing the whole World by Motion and Reason So that Varro plainly asserted One Supreme and Vniversal Numen he erring only in this as St. Austin conceives that he called him A Soul and not the Creator of Soul or a Pure and Abstract Mind But as Varro acknowledged One Vniversal Numen the Whole Animated World or rather the Soul thereof which also he affirmed to be called by several Names as in the Earth Tellus in the Sea Neptune and the like so did he also admit together with the rest of the Pagans other Particular Gods which were to him nothing but Parts of the World Animated with Souls Superiour to men A summo Circuitu coeli usque ad Circulum Lunae aethereas Animas esse Astra ac Stellas eosque coelestes Deos non modo intelligi esse sed etiam videri Inter Lunae verò gyrum nimborum Caeumina Aereas esse Animas sed eas animo non oculis videri vocari Heroas Lares Genios That from the highest Circuit of the heavens to the Sphere of the Moon there are Ethereal Souls or Animals the Stars which are not only understood but also seen to be Celestial Gods And between the Sphere of the Moon and the Middle Region of the Air there are Aereal Souls or Animals which though not seen by our Eyes yet are discovered by our Mind and called Heroes Lares and Genii So that according to Varro the only True Natural Gods were as himself also determined Anima Mundi ac Partes ejus First the great Soul and Mind of the whole world which comprehendeth all and secondly the Parts of the World Animated superiour to men Which Gods also he affirmed to be worshipped Castiùs more purely and chastly without Images as they were by the first Romans for one hundred and seventy years he concluding qui primi simulachra Deorum populi posuerunt eos civitatibus suis metum dempsisse errorem addidisse prudenter existimans saith St. Austin Deos facilè posse in Simulachrorum stoliditate contemni That those Nations who first set up Images of the Gods did both take away Fear from their Cities and add Errour to them he wisely Judging that the Foppery of Images would easily render their Gods contemptible L. Annaeus Seneca the Philosopher was contemporary with our Saviour Christ and his Apostles who though frequently acknowledging a Plurality of Gods did nevertheless plainly assert One Supreme he not only speaking of him Singularly and by way of Eminency but also plainly describing him as such as when he calls him Formatorem Vniversi Rectorem Arbitrum Custodem Mundi Ex quo suspensa sunt omnia Animum ac Spiritum Vniversi Mundani hujus operis Dominum Artificem Cui nomen
calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cause which Containeth all things and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Best and Most excellent part of the World he beginning after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is an ancient Opinion or Tradition that hath been conveyed down to all men from their Progenitors that all things are from God and consist by him and that no Nature is sufficient to preserve it self if left alone and devoid of the Divine assistance and influence Where we may observe that the Apuleian Latin Version altering the sence renders the words thus Vetus opinio est atque in cogitationes omnium hominum penitus incidit Deum esse Originis non habere auctorem Deumque esse salutem perseverantiam Earum quas essecerit rerum So that whereas in the Original Greek This is said to be the general Opinion of all mankind That all things are from God and subsist by him and that nothing at all can conserve it self in being without him Apuleius correcting the words makes the general sence of mankind to run no higher than this That there is a God who hath no author of his original and who is the safety and preservation of all those things that were made by himself From whence it may be probably concluded that Apuleius who is said to have been of Plutarch's Progeny was infected also with those Paradoxical Opinions of Plutarch's and consequently did suppose All things not to have been made by God nor to have depended on him as the Writer De Mundo affirmeth but that there was something besides God as namely the Matter and an Evil Principle Uâ—created and Self-existent Afterwards the same Writer De Mundo elegantly illustrates by Similitudes how God by One Simple Motion and Energy of his own without any labour or toil doth produce and govern all the Variety of Motions in the Universe and how he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contein the Harmony and Safety of the Whole And lastly he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That what a Pilot is to a ship a Charioteer to a Chariot the Coryphaeus to a Quire Law to a City and a General to an Army the same is God to the World There being only this difference that whereas the Government of some of them is toilsom and sollicitous the Divine Government and Steerage of the World is most easie and facil for as this Writer adds God being himself Immovable Moveth all things in the same manner as Law in it self Immovable by Moving the minds of the Citizens orders and disposes all things Plutarchus Chaeronensis as hath been already declared was Unluckily engaged in Two False Opinions The First of Matters being Ingenit or Vncreated upon this Pretence Because Nothing could be made out of Nothing the Second of a Positive Substantial Evil Principle or an Irrational Soul and Demon Self-existent upon this Ground because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is no greater Absurdity imaginable than that Evil should proceed from the Providence of God as a Bad Epigramm from the will of the Poet. In which respect he was before called by us a Ditheist Plutarch was also a Worshipper of the Many Pagan Gods himself being a Priest of the Pythian Apollo Notwithstanding which he unquestionably asserted One Sole Principle of All Good the Cause of all things Evil and Matter only excepted the Framer of the Whole World and Maker of all the Gods in it who is therefore often called by him God in way of Eminency as when he affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that God doth always act the Geometrician that is do all things in Measure and Proportion and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That all things are made by God according to Harmony and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is called a Harmonist and Musician And he hath these Epithets given him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Great God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Highest or Vppermost God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Vnmade Self-existent God all the other Pagan Gods according to him having been made in Time together with the World He is likewise stiled by Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sea of Pulchritude and his Standing and Permanent Duration without any Flux of Time is excellently descibed by the same Writer in his Book concerning the Delphick Inscription Lastly Plutarch affirmeth that men generally pray to this Supreme God for whatsoever is not in their own power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dio Chrysostomus a Sophist Plutarch's Equal though an acknowledger of Many Gods yet nevertheless asserteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the whole World is under a Kingly Power or Monarchy he calling the Supreme God sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common King of Gods and Men their Governour and Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God that rules over all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First and Greatest God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The chief President over all things who orders and guides the whole Heaven and World as a wise Pilot doth a Ship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ruler of the whole Heaven and Lord of the Whole Essence and the like And he affirming that there is a Natural Prolepsis in the Minds of men concerning him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning the nature of the Gods in general but especially of that Supreme Ruler over all there is an opinion in all humane kind as well Barbarians as Greeks that is naturally implanted in them as rational Beings and not derived from any mortal Teacher The meaning whereof is this that men are naturally possessed with a Perswasion that there is One God the Supreme Governour of the whole World and that there are also below him but above men Many other Intellectual Beings which these Pagans called Gods That Galen was no Atheist and what his Religion was may plainly appear from this one passage out of his third Book De Vsu Partium to omit many others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Should I any longer insist upon such Brutish Persons as those the wise and sober might justly condemn me as defiling this Holy Oration which I compose as a True Hymn to the praise of him that made us I conceiving true Piety and Religion towards God to consist in this not that I should sacrifice many Hecatombs or burn much Incense to him but that I should my self first acknowledge and then declare to others how great his Wisdom is how great his Power and how great his Goodness For that he would adorn the whole world after this manner envying to nothing that good which it was capable of I conclude to be a demonstration of most absolute Goodness and thus let him be praised by us as Good And that he was able to find out how all things might be adorned after the best manner is a Sign of the
maintain it in that forementioned Book De Iside so was it further cleared and made out as Damascius informs us by Two Famous Egyptian Philosophers Asclepiades and Heraiscus in certain writings of theirs that have been since lost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though Eudemus hath given us no certain account of the Egyptians yet the Egyptian Philosophers of latter times have declared the hidden truth of their Theology having found in some Egyptian Monuments that according to them there is one Principle of all things celebrated under the name of the Vnknown Darkness and this thrice repeated c. Moreover this is to be observed concerning these Egyptians that they are wont to divide and multiply things that are One and the Same And accordingly have they divided and multiplied the First intelligible or the One Supreme Deity into the Properties of Many Gods as any one may find that pleases to consult their writings I mean that of Heraiscus entitled the Vniversal Doctrine of the Egyptians and inscribed to Proclus the Philosopher and that Symphony or Harmony of the Egyptians with other Theologers begun to be written by Asclepiades and left imperfect Of which Work of Asclepiades the Egyptian Suidas also maketh mention upon the Word Heraiscus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Asclepiades having been more conversant with ancient Egyptian writings was more throughly instructed and exactly skilled in his Country Theology he having searched into the Principles thereof and all the consequences resulting from them as manifestly appeareth from those Hymns which he composed in praise of the Egyptian Gods and from that Tractate begun to be written by him but left unfinished which containeth The Symphony of all Theologies Now we say that Asclepiades his Symphony of all the Pagan Theologies and therefore of the Egyptian with the rest was their agreement in those Two Fundamentals expressed by Plutarch namely the worshipping of One Supreme and Vniversal Numen Reason and Providence governing all things and then of his Subservient Ministers the Instruments of Providence appointed by him over all the parts of the world Which being honoured under several Names and with different Rites and Ceremonies according to the Laws of the respective Countreys caused all that Diversity of Religions that was amongst them Both which Fundamental Points of the Pagan Theology were in like manner acknowledged by Symmachu's The First of them being thus expressed Aequum est quicquid omnes colunt Vnum putari That all Religions agreed in this the Worshipping of One and the same Supreme Numen and the Second thus Varios Custodes Vrbibus Mens Divina distribuit That the Divine Mind appointed divers Guardian and Tutelar Spirits under him unto Cities and Countries He there adding also that Suus cuique Mos est suum cuique Jus That every Nation had their peculiar Modes and Manners in worshipping of these and that these external differences in Religion ought not to be stood upon but every one to observe the Religion of his own Country Or else these Two Fundamental Points of the Pagan Theology may be thus expressed First that there is One Self-Originated Deity who was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Maker of the whole World Secondly That there are besides him Other Gods also to be Religiously worshipped that is Intellectual Beings superiour to men which were notwithstanding all Made or Created by that One Stobaeus thus declaring their sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the multitude of Gods is the work of the Demiurgus made by him together with the world XXIX And that the Pagan Theologers did thus generally acknowledge One Supreme and Vniversal Numen appears plainly from hence because they supposed the whole World to be an Animal Thus the Writer de Placitis Philos. and out of him Stobaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All others assert the World to be an Animal and governed by Providence only Leucippus Democritus and Epicurus and those who make Atoms and Vacuum the Principles of all things dissenting who neither acknowledge the World to be Animated nor yet to be governed by Providence but by an Irrational Nature Where by the way we may observe the Fraud and Juggling of Gassendus who takes occasion from hence highly to extol and applaud Epicurus as one who approached nearer to Christianity than all the other Philosophers in that he denied the World to be an Animal whereas according to the Language and Notions of those times to deny the Worlds Animation and to be an Atheist or to deny a God was one and the same thing because all the Pagans who then asserted Providence held the World also to be Animated neither did Epicurus deny the World's Animation upon any other account than this because he denied Providence And the Ground upon which this opinion of the Worlds Animation was built was such as might be obvious even to vulgar undererstandings and it is thus expressed by Plotinus according to the sence of the Ancients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is absurd to affirm that the Heaven or World is Inanimate or devoid of Life and Soul when we our selves who have but a part of the Mundane Body in us are endued with Soul For how could a Part have Life and Soul in it the Whole being Dead and inanimate Now if the whole world be One Animal then must it needs be Governed by One Soul and not by Many Which One Soul of the World and the whole Mundane Animal was by some of the Pagan Theologers as namely the Stoicks taken to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First and Highest God of all Nevertheless others of the Pagan Theologers though asserting the World's Animation likewise yet would by no means allow the Mundane Soul to be the Supreme Deity they conceiving the First and Highest God to be an Abstract and Immovable Mind and not a Soul Thus the Panegyrist cited also by Gyraldus invokes the Supreme Deity doubtfully and cautiously as not knowing well what to call him whether Soul or Mind Te Summe rerum Sator cujus tot nomina sunt quot gentium linguas esse voluisti quem enim te ipse dici velis scire non possumus sive in te quaedam vis Mensque Divina est quae toto infusa mundo omnibus miscearis elementis sine ullo extrinsecus accedente vigoris impulsu per te ipse movearis sive aliqua supra omne Coelum potestas es quae hoc opus totum ex altiore Naturae arce despicias Te inquam oramus c. Thou Supreme Original of all things who hast as many Names as thou hast pleased there should be languages whether thou beest a certain Divine Force and Soul that infused into the whole world art mingled with all the Elements and without any External impulse moved from thy self or whether thou beest a Power Elevated above the Heavens which lookest down upon the whole work of Nature as from a higher Tower Thee
worshipping Many Vnmade Self-originated Deities as Partial Creators of the World or else in worshipping besides the Supreme God other Created Beings Superiour to Men Now Philo plainly understood the Pagan Polytheism after this latter way as may appear from this passage of his in his Book concerning the Confusion of Languages where speaking of the Supreme God the Maker and Lord of the whole World and of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Innumerable Assistent Powers both visible and invisible he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore some men being struck with admiration of both these Worlds the Visible and the Invisible have not only Deified the whole of them but also their several Parts as the Sun and the Moon and the whole Heaven they not scrupling to call these Gods Which Notion and Language of theirs Moses respected in those words of his Thou Lord the King of Gods he thereby declaring the transcendency of the Supreme God above all those his subjects called Gods To the same purpose Philo writeth also in his Commentary upon the Decalogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore removing all such imposture Let us worship no Beings that are by Nature Brothers and Germane to us though endued with far more pure and immortal Essences than we are For all Created things as such have a kind of Germane and Brotherly Equality with one another the maker of all things being their common Father But let us deeply infix this first and most holy commandment in our breasts to acknowledge and worship One only Highest God And again afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who worship the Sun and the Moon and the whole Heaven and World and the Principal parts of them as Gods err in that they worship the Subjects of the Prince whereas the Prince alone ought to be worshipped Thus according to Philo the Pagan Polytheism consisted in giving Religious Worship besides the Supreme God to other Created understanding Beings and Parts of the World more pure and immortal than men Flavius Josephus in his Judaick Antiquities extolling Abraham's Wisdom and Piety writeth thus concerning him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some would understand in this manner that Abraham was the first who publickly declared that there was one God the Demiurgus or maker of the whole world as if all mankind besides at that time had supposed the world to have been made not by One but by Many Gods But the true meaning of those words is this That Abraham was the first who in that degenerate age publickly declared that the Maker of the whole world was the One only God and alone to be Religiously Worshipped accordingly as it follows afterwards in the same writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom alone men ought to give honour and thanks And the reason hereof is there also set down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because all those other beings that were then worshipped as Gods whatsoever any of them contributed to the happiness of mankind they did it not by their own power but by his appointment and command he instancing in the Sun and Moon and Earth and Sea which are all made and ordered by a higher power and providence by the force whereof they contribute to our utility As if he should have said That no Created Being ought to be Religiously worshipped but the Creator only And this agreeth with what we read in Scripture concerning Abraham that he called upon the Name of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The God of the whole World that is he worshipped no particular Created Beings as the other Pagans at that time did but only that Supreme Vniversal Numen which made and conteineth the whole World And thus Maimonides interprets that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abraham began to teach that none ought to be Religiously Worshipped save only the God of the whole World Moreover the same Josephus afterwards in his Twelfth Book brings in Aristaeus who seems to have been a secret Proselyted Greek pleading with Ptolemaeus Philadelphus in behalf of the Jews and their Liberty after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It would well agree with your Goodness and Magnanimity to free the Jews from that miserable Captivity which they are under since the same God who governeth your Kingdom gave Laws to them as I have by diligent search found out For both They and we do alike worship the God who made all things we calling him Zene because he gives life to all Wherefore for the honour of that God whom they worship after a singular manner please you to indulge them the liberty of returning to their native country Where Aristaeus also according to the sence of Pagans thus concludes Know O King that I intercede not for these Jews as having any cognation with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but all men being the Workmanship of God and knowing that he is delighted with beneficence I therefore thus exhort you As for the latter Jewish Writers and Rabbins it is certain that the generality of them supposed the Pagans to have acknowledged One Supreme and Vniversal Numen and to have worshipped all their other Gods only as his Ministers or as Mediators between him and them Maimonides in Halacoth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 describeth the Rise of the Pagan Polytheism in the dayes of Enosh after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the days of Enosh the Sons of men grievously erred and the wisemen of that age became brutish even Enosh himself being in the number of them and their errour was this that since God had created the Stars and Spheres to govern the world and placing them on high had bestowed this honour upon them that they should be his Ministers and subservient Instruments men ought therefore to praise them honour them and worship them this being the pleasure of the Blessed God that men should magnifie and honour those whom himself hath magnified and honoured as a King will have his Ministers to be reverenced this honour redounding to himself Again the same Maimonides in the beginning of the Second Chapter of that Book writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Foundation of that Commandment against strange Worship now commonly called Idolatry is this that no man should worship any of the Creatures whatsoever neither Angel nor Sphere nor Star nor any of the four Elements nor any thing made out of them For though he that worships these things know that the Lord is God and Superiour to them all and worships those Creatures no otherwise than Enosh and the rest of that age did yet is he nevertheless guilty of Strange Worship or Idolatry And that after the times of Enosh also in succeeding ages the Polytheism of the Pagan Nations was no other than this the worshipping besides One Supreme God of other created Beings as the Ministers of his Providence and as Middles or Mediators betwixt Him and Men is declared likewise by Maimonides in his More
For Aratus his Phaenomena begin thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Tully's Version is Ab Jove Musarum Primordia and then follows a Description of this Zeus or Jupiter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this sence Him of whom we men are never silent and of whom all things are full he permeating and pervading all and being every where and whose beneficence we all constantly make use of and enjoy For we also are his Off-spring Where Theon the Scholiast writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aratus being about to declare the Position of the Stars doth in the first place very decorously and becomingly invoke Zeus the Father and Maker of them For by Zeus is here to be understood the Demiurgus of the World or as he afterwards expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God who made all things Notwithstanding which we must confess that this Scholiast there adds that some of these Passages of the Poet and even that cited by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood also in another sence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Physical Jupiter that is the Air but without the least shadow of Probability and for no other reason as we conceive but only to shew his Philological Skill However this is set down by him in the First place as the genuine and proper sence of those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This agreeth with that Title of Jupiter when he is called the Father of Gods and men For if he made Vs and all these other things for our use we may well be called His and also style him our Father and Maker And that this was the only Notion which the Poet here had of Zeus or Jupiter appears undeniably also from the following words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who as a kind and benign Father sheweth lucky Signs to men which to understand of the Air were very absurd And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he also hath fastned the Signs in Heaven distinguishing Constellations and having appointed Stars to rise and set at several times of the year And from this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore is He always Propitiated and Placated both First and Last Upon which the Scholiast thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This perhaps refers to the Libations in that the First of them was for the Heavenly Gâ—ds the Second for Heroes and the Last for Jupiter the Saviour From whence it plainly appears also that the Pagans in their Sacrifices or Religious Rites did not forget Jupiter the Saviour that is the Suprâ—me God Lastly from his concluding thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Supreme God is saluted as the Great Wonder of the World and Interest of Mankind Wherefore it is evident from Aratus his Context that by his Zeus or Jupiter was really meant the Supreme God the Maker of the whole World which being plainly confirmed also by St. Paul and the Scripture ought to be a matter out of Controversie amongst us Neither is it reasonable to think that Aratus was Singular in this but that he spake according to the Received Theology of the Greeks and that not only amongst Philosophers Learned Men but even the Vulgar also Nor do we think that that Prayer of the ancient Athenians commended by M. Antoninus for its simplicity is to be understood otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rain Rain O Good or Gracious Jupiter upon the fields and pastures of the Athenians upon which the Emperor thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We should either not pray at all to God er else thus plainly and freely And since the Latins had the very same Notion of Jupiter that the Greeks had of Zeus it cannot be denied but that they commonly by their Jupiter also undestood the One Supreme God the Lord of Heaven and Earth We know nothing that can be objected against this from the Scripture unless it should be that Passage of St. Paul In the Wisdom of God the World by Wisdom knew not God But the meaning thereof is no other than this that the Generality of the World before Christianity by their Natural Light and Contemplation of the works of God did not attain to such a Practical Knowledge of God as might both free them from Idolatry and Effectually bring them to a Holy Life XXXII But in order to a fuller explication of this Pagan Theology and giving yet a more Satisfactory Account concerning it there are Three Heads requisite to be insisted on First That the Intelligent Pagans worshipped the One Supreme God under Many Several Names Secondly That besides this One God they worshipped also Many Gods that were indeed Inferiour Deities Subordinate to Him Thirdly That they worshipped both the Supreme and Inferiour Gods in Images Statues and Symbols sometimes Abusively called also Gods We begin with the First That the Supreme God amongst the Pagans was Polyonymous and worshipped under several Personal Names according to several Notions and Considerations of him from his Several Attributes and Powers Manifestations and Effects in the World It hath been already observed out of Origen that not only the Egyptians but also the Syrians Persians Indians and other Barbarian Pagans had beside their Vulgar Theology another more Arcane and Recondit one amongst their Priests and Learned Men and that the same was true concerning the Greeks and Latins also is unquestionably evident from that account that hath been given by us of their Philosophick Theology Where by the Vulgar Theology of the Pagans we understand not only their Mythical or Fabulous but also their Political or Civil Theology it being truly affirmed by St. Austin concerning both these Et Civilis Fabulosa ambae Fabulosae sunt ambaeque Civiles That both the Fabulous Theology of the Pagans was in part their Civil and their Civil was Fabulous And by their more Arcane or Recondit Theology is doubtless meant that which they conceived to be the Natural and True Theology Which Distinction of the Natural and True Theology from the Civil and Political as it was acknowledged by all the Ancient Greek Philosophers but most expresly by Antistines Plato Aristotle and the Stoicks so was it owned and much insisted upon both by Scaevola that famous Roman Pontifex and by Varro that most Learned Antiquary they both agreeing that the Civil Theology then established by the Roman Laws was only the Theology of the Vulgar but not the True and that there was another Theology besides it called by them Natural which was the Theology of Wise men and of Truth nevertheless granting a necessity that in Cities and Commonwealths besides this Natural and True Theology which the generality of the Vulgar were uncapable of there should be another Civil or Political Theology accommodate to their apprehensions which Civil Theology differ'd from the
Summa Numinum Prima Coelitum Deorum Dearumque facies Vniformis cujus numen Vnicum multiformi specie ritu vaâ—io nomine multijugo totus veneratur Orbis as she plainly makes her self to be the Supreme Deity so doth she intimate that all the Gods Goddessâ—s were compendiously conteined in Her Alone and that she i.e. the Supreme God was worshipped under several personal Names with different rites over the whole Pagan World Moreover this is particularly noted concerning the Egyptians by Damascius the Philosopher that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They multiplied the First Intelligible or the Supreme Deity breaking and dividing the same into the Names and Properties of Many Gods Now the Egyptian Theology was in a manner the Pattern of all the rest but especially of those European Theologies of the Greeks and Romans Who likewise that they often Made Many Gods of One is evident from their bestowing so many Proper and Personal Names upon each of those Inferiour Gods of theirs The Sun and The Moon and The Earth The First whereof Usually called Apollo had therefore this Epithet of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly given to him the God with many Names Which many Proper Names of his Macrobius insisteth upon in his Saturnalia though probably making more of them than indeed they were And the Moon was not only so called but also Diana and Lucina and Hecate and otherwise insomuch that this Goddess also hath been stiled Polyonymous as well as her brother the Sun And Lastly the Earth besides those Honorary Titles of Bona Dea and Magna Dea and Mater Deorum The Good Goddess and the Great Goddess and the Mother of the Gods was multiplied by them into those Many Goddesses of Vesta and Rhea and Cybele and Ceres and Proserpina and Ops c. And for this cause was she thus described by Aeschylus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Tellus Multorum Nominum Facies Vna Now if these Inferiour Gods of the Pagans had each of them so many Personal Names bestowed upon them much more might the Supreme God be Polyonymous amongst them and so indeed he was commonly stiled as that learned Grammarian Hesychius intimates upon that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they called the Monad thus and it was also the Epithet of Apollo where by the Monad according to the Pythagorick Language is meant the Supreme Deity which was thus stiled by the Pagans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Being that hath many Names And accordingly Cleanthes thus beginneth that forecited Hymn of his to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou most Glorious of all the Immortal Gods who art called by Many Names And Zeno his Master in Laertius expresly declareth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is called by many several Names according to his several Powers and Vertues whose Instances shall be afterwards taken notice of Thus also the Writer De Mundo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God though he be but one is Polyonymous and variously denominated from his several attributes and the effects produced by him Quaecunque voles saith Seneca illi Propria Nomina aptabis vim aliquam Effectumque Coelestium rerum continentia Tot Appellationes ejus possunt esse quot Munera You may give God whatsoever Proper Names you please so they signifie some force and effect of Heavenly things He may have as many Names as he hath Manifestations Offices and Gifts Macrobius also from the Authority of Virgil thus determines Vnius Dei Effectus Varios pro Variis censendos esse or as Vossius corrects it Censeri Numinibus That the Various Effects of One God were taken for Several Gods that is Expressed by Several Personal Names as he there affirmeth the Divers Vertues of the Sun to have given Names to Divers Gods because they gave occasion for the Sun to be called by Several Proper and Personal Names We shall conclude with that of Maximus Madaurensis before cited out of St. Austin Hujus Virtutes per Mundanum Opus diffusas Nos multis vocabulis invocamus quoniam Nomen ejus Proprium ignoramus Ita fit ut dum ejus quasi quaedam Membra carptim variis supplicationibus prosequimur Totum colere profectò videamur The Vertues of this One Supreme God diffused throughout the whole World we Pagans invoke under Many Several Names because we are ignorant what his Proper Name is Wherefore we thus worshipping his Several Divided Members must needs be judged to worship him Whole we leaving out nothing of him With which Latter words seemeth to agree that of the Poet wherein Jupiter thus bespeaks the other Gods Coelicolae Mea Membra Dei quos Nostra Potestas Officiis divisa facit Where it is plainly intimated that the Many Pagan Gods were but the Several Divided Members of the One Supreme Deity whether because according to the Stoical Sence the Real and Natural Gods were all but Parts of the Mundane Soul or else because all those other Phantastick Gods were nothing but Several Personal Names given to the Several Powers Vertues and Offices of the One Supreme Now the Several Names of God which the Writer De Mundo instanceth in to prove him Polyonymous are First of all such as these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Thunderer and Lightâ—er 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Giver of Rain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bestower of Fruits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Keeper of Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Mild and Placable under which Notion they sacrificed no Animals to him but only the Fruits of the Earth together with many other such Epithets as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and Lastly he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saviour and Assertour Answerably to which Jupiter had Many such Names given him also by the Latins as â—â—ctor Invictus Opitulus Stator the True meaning of which last according to Seneca was not that which the Historians pretend quod post Votum susceptum acies Romanorum fugientium stetit because once after Vows and Prayers offered to him the Flying Army of the Romans was made to stand Sed quod stant beneficio ejus Omnia but because all things by means of him Stand Firm and are Established For which same reason he was called also by them as St. Austin informs us Centupeda as it were standing Firm upon an Hundred Feet and Tigillus the Beam Prop and Supporter of the World He was stiled also by the Latins amongst other Titles Almus and Ruminus i. e. He that Nourisheth all things as it were with his Breasts Again that Writer De Mundo addeth another sort of Names which God was called by as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Necessity because he is an Immovable Essence though Cicero gives another reason for that appellation Interdum Deum Necessitatem appellant quia nihil aliter esse possit atque ab eo constitutum sit they sometimes call God Necessity because nothing can be
called God Now the forementioned Argumentation of St. Austin though it be good against the Pagans Civil Theology yet their other Arcane and Natural Theology was unconcerned in it that plainly acknowledging all to be but One God which for certain Reasons was worshipped under Several Names and with Different Rites Wherefore Janus and Jupiter being really but Different Names for One and the same Supreme God that conjecture of Salmasius seems very probable that the Romans derived their Janus from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Aetolian Jupiter GENIVS was also another of the Twenty Select Roman Gods that this was likewise a Vniversal Numen containing the whole Nature of things appears from this of Festus Genium appellabant Deum qui vim obtineret rerum omnium genendarum They called that God who hath the Power of begetting or producing all things Genius And St. Austin also plainly declareth Genius to be the same with Jupiter that is to be but another Name for the One Supreme God Cum alio loco Varro dicit Genium esse Vniuscujusque animum rationalem talem autem Mundi Animum Deum esse ad hoc idem utique revocat ut tanquam Vniversalis Genius ipse Mundi Animus esse credatur Hic est igitur quem appellant Jovem And afterwards Restat ut eum Singulariter Excellenter dicant Deum Genium quem dicunt Mundi Animum ac per hoc Jovem When Varro elsewhere calleth the Rational Mind of every one a Genius and affirmeth such a Mind of the whole World to be God he plainly implieth that God is the Vniversal Genius of the world and that Genius and Jupiter are the same And though Genius be sometime used for the Mind of every man yet the God Genius spoken of by way of Excellency can be no other than the Mind of the whole world or Jupiter Again that CHRONOS or SATURN was no Particular Deity but the Vniversal Numen of the whole World is plainly affirmed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus where commending the Fertility of Italy he writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore it is no wonder if the Ancients thought this Country to be sacred to Saturn they supposing this God to be the Giver and Perfecter of all happiness to men whether we ought to call him Chronos as the Greeks will have it or Cronos as the Romans he being either way such a God as comprehends the Whole Nature of the world But the word Saturn was Hetrurian which Language was Originally Oriental and being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Hidden so that by Saturn was meant that Hidden Principle of the Vniverse which containeth all things and he was therefore called by the Romans Deus Latius The Hidden God as the wife of Saturn in the Pontifical Books is Latia Saturni and the Land it self which in the Hetrurian Language was Saturnia is in the Roman Latium from whence the Inhabitants were called Latins which is as much as to say the Worshippers of the Hidden God Moreover that Saturn could not be inferiour to Jupiter according to the Fabulous Theology is plain from hence because he is therein said to have been his Father But then the Question will be how Saturn and Jupiter could be both of them One and the same Vniversal Numen To which there are several Answers For first Plato who propounds this Difficulty in his Craetylus solves it thus That by Jupiter here is to be understood the Soul of the World which according to his Theology was derived from a Perfect and Eternal Mind or Intellect which Chronos is interpreted to be as Chronos also depended upon Vranus or Coelus the Supreme Heavenly God or First Original Deity So that Plato here finds his Trinity of Divine Hypostases Archical and Vniversal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Vranus Chronos and Zeus or Coelus Saturn and Jupiter Others conceive that according to the plainer and more simple sence of Hesiod's Theogonia that Jupiter who together with Neptune and Pluto is said to have been the Son of Saturn was not the Supreme Deity nor the Soul of the World neither but only the Aether as Neptune was the Sea and Pluto the Earth All which are said to have been begotten by Chronos or Saturn the Son of Vranus that is as much as to say by the Hidden Vertue of the Supreme Heavenly God But the Writer De Mundo though making Jupiter to be the First and Supreme God yet taking Chronos to signifie Immensity of Duration or Eternity will have Jupiter to be the Son of Chronos in this sence because he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continue from one Eternity to another so that Chronos and Zeus are to him in a manner one and the same thing But we are apt to think that no Ingenuous and learned Pagan who well understood the Natural Theology would deny but that the best Answer of all to this difficulty is this That there is no Coherent Sence to be made of all things in the Fabulous Theology St. Austin from Varro gives us this account of Saturn that it is he who produceth from himself continually the Hidden Seeds and Forms of things and reduceth or receiveth them again into himself which some think to have been the true meaning of that Fable concerning Saturn his devouring his Male-children because the Forms of these Corporeal things are perpetually destroyed whilst the Material Parts signified by the Femals still remain However it is plain that this was but another Pagan Adumbration of the Deity that being also sometimes thus defined by them as St. Austin likewise enforms us Sinus quidam Naturae in seipso continens omnia A certain Bosom or Deep Hollow and Inward Recess of Nature which conteineth within it self all things And St. Austin himself concludes that according to this Varronian Notion of Saturn likewise the Pagans Jupiter and Saturn were really but one and the same Numen De Civ D. L. 7. c. 13. Wherefore we may with good reason affirm that Saturn was another Name for the Supreme God amongst the Pagans it signifying that Secret and Hidden Power which comprehends pervades and supports the whole World and which produces the Seeds or Seminal Principles and Forms of all things from it self As also Vranus or Coelus was plainly yet another Name for the same Supreme Deity or the First Divine Hypostasis comprehending the whole In the next place though it be true that Minerva be sometimes taken for a Particular God or for God according to a Particular Manifestation of him in the Aether as shall be shewed afterwards yet was it often taken also for the Supreme God according to his most General Notion or as a Vniversal Numen diffusing himself through all things Thus hath it been already proved that Neith or Neithas was the same amongst the Egyptians that Athena amongst the Greeks and Minerva amongst the Latins which that it was a Vniversal Numen appears from that
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
destitute of a Ruler or without a Superiour Government but all things full of Divine Names and of Divine Reason and of Divine Art Where his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Divine Names are nothing but Several Names of God as manifesting himself variously in the several Things of Nature and the parts of the world and as presiding over them Wherefore besides those Special Gods of the Pagans already mentioned that were appointed to preside over several Parts of the world there are Others which are but several Names of the Supreme God neither as exercising several Offices and Functions in the world and bestowing several Gifts upon mankind as when in giving Corn and Fruits he is called Ceres in bestowing Wine Bacchus in mens recovery of their Health Aesculapius in presiding over Traffick and Merchandizing Mercury in governing Military Affairs Mars in ordering the Winds Aeolus and the like That the more Philosophick Pagans did thus really interpret the Fables of the Gods and make their Many Poetical and Political Gods to be all of them but One and the same Supreme Natural God is evident â—rom the testimonies of Antisthenes Plato Xenocrates Zeno Cleanthes and Chrysippus who allegorized all the Fables of the Gods accordingly and of Scaevola the Roman Pontifex of Cicero Varro Seneca and many others But that even their Poets also did sometimes venture to broach this Arcane Theology is manifest from those Fragments preserved of Hermesianax the Colophonian amongst the Greeks and of Valerius Soranus amongst the Latins the former thus enumerating the chief Pagan Gods and declaring them to be all but one and the same Numen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pluto Persephone Ceres Venus alma Amores Tritones Nereus Tethys Neptunus ipse Mercurius Juno Vulcanus Jupiter Pan Diana Phaebus Jaculator sunt Deus Unus The Latter pronouncing Universally that Jupiter Omnipotens is Deus Vnus Omnes One God and All Gods Whether by his Jupiter he here meant the Soul of the World only as Varro would interpret him agreeably to his own Hypothesis or whether an Abstract Mind superiour to it but probably he made this Jupiter to be All Gods upon these two Accounts First as he was the Begetter and Creator of all the other Natural Gods which were the Pagans Inferiour Deities as the Stars and Daemons Secondly as that all the other Poetical and Political Gods were Nothing else but Several Names and Notions of him We shall add in the last place that St. Austin making a more Full and Particular Enumeration of the Pagan Gods and mentioning amongst them many others besides the Select Roman Gods which are not now commonly taken notice of does pronounce Universally of them all according to the sence of the more Intelligent Pagans That they were but One and the same Jupiter Ipse in Aethere sit Jupiter Ipse in Aere Juno Ipse in Mari Neptunus in Inferioribus etiam Maris Ipse Salacia in Terra Pluto in Terra Inferiore Proserpina in Focis Domesticis Vesta in Fabrorum fornace Vulcanus in Divinantibus Apollo in Merce Mercurius in Jano Initiator in Termino Terminator Saturnus in Tempore Mars Bellona in Bellis Liber in Vineis Ceres in Frumentis Diana in Sylvis Minerva in Ingeniis Ipse sit postremò etiam illa Turba quasi Plebeiorum Deorum Ipse praesit nomine Liberi Virorum Seminibus nomine Liberae Faeminarum Ipse sit Diespiter qui Partum perducat ad Diem Ipse sit Dea Mena quam praefecerunt Menstruis Faeminarum Ipse Lucina quae à Parturientibus invocatur Ipse Opem ferat nascentibus excipiens eos sinu Terrae vocetur Opis Ipse in Vagitu os aperiat vocetur Deus Vagitanus Ipse levet de Terra vocetur Dea Levana Ipse Cunas tueatur vocetur Dea Cunina Sit Ipse in Deabus illis quae fata nascentibus canunt vocantur Carmentes Praesit Fortuitis vocenturque Fortuna In Diva Rumina mammam parvulis immulgeat In Diva Potina Potionem immisceat In Diva Educa Escam praebeat De Pavore infantium Paventia nuncupetur De spe quae venit Venilia de Voluptate Volupia De Actu Agenoria De stimulis quibus ad nimium actum homo impellitur Dea Stimula nominetur Strenua Dea sit strenuum faciendo Numeria quae numerare doceat Camaena quae canere Ipse sit Deus Consus praebendo Consilia Dea Sentia sententias inspirando Ipse Dea Juventas quae post praetextam excipiat Juvenilis aetatis Exordia Ipse sit Fortuna Barbata quae adultos barba induit quos honorare voluerit Ipse in Jugatino Deo Conjuges jungat cum Virgini uxori zona solvitur Ipse invocetur Dea Virginensis invocetur Ipse sit Mutinus qui est apud Graecos Priapus si non pudet Haec omnia quae dixi quaecunque non dixi hi omnes Dii Deaeque sit Unus Jupiter sive sint ut quidam volunt omnia ista Partes ejus sicut eis videtur quibus eum placet esse Mundi Animum sive Virtutes ejus quae sententia velut magnorum multorumque Doctorum est Let us grant according to the Pagans that the Supreme God is in the Aether Jupiter in the Air Juno in the Sea Neptune in the lower parts of the Sea Salacia in the Earth Pluto in the inferiour parts thereof Proserpina in the Domestick harths Vesta in the Smiths Forges Vulcan in Divination Apollo in Traffick and Merchandize Mercury in the Beginning of things Janus in the Ends of them Terminus in Time Saturn in Wars Mars and Bellona in the Vineyards Liber in the Corn-fields Ceres in the Woods Diana and in Wits Minerva Let him be also that troop of Plebeian Gods let him preside over the seeds of men under the Name of Liber and of women under the name of Libera let him be Diespiter that brings forth the birth to light let him be the Goddess Mena whom they have set over womens monthly courses let him be Lucina invoked by women in child-bearing let him be Opis who aids the new born Infants let him be Deus Vagitanus that opens their mouths to cry let him be the Goddess Levana which is said to lift them up from the Earth and the Goddess Cunina that defends their Cradles let him be the Carmentes also who foretel the Fates of Infants let him be Fortune as presiding over Fortuitous events let him be Diva Rumina which suckles the Infant with the Breasts Diva Potina which gives it drink and Diva Educa which affords it meat let him be called the Goddess Paventia from the Fear of Infants the Goddess Venilia from Hope the Goddess Volupia from Pleasure the Goddess Agenoria from Acting the Goddess Stimula from Provoking the Goddess Strenua from making Strong and Vigorous the Goddess Numeria which teacheth to Number the Goddess Camaena which teaches to Sing let
him be Deus Consus as giving Counsel and Dea Sentia as inspiring men with Sense let him be the Goddess Juventas which has the Guardianship of young men and Fortuna Barbata which upon some more than others liberally bestoweth beards let him be Deus Jugatinus which joyns man and wife together and Dea Virginensis which is then invoked when the Girdle of the Bride is loosed Lastly let him be Mutinus also which is the same with Priapus amongst the Greeks if you will not be ashamed to say it Let all these Gods and Goddesses and many more which I have not mentioned be One and the same Jupiter whether as Parts of him which is agreeable to their opinion who hold him to be the Soul of the world or else as his Vertues only which is the sence of many and great Pagan Doctors But that the Authority and Reputation of a late Learned and Industrious Writer G. I. Vossius may not here stand in our way or be a Prejudice to us we think it necessary to take notice of one passage of his in his Book De Theologia Gentili and freely to censure the the same where treating concerning that Pagan Goddess Venus he writeth thus Ex Philosophica de Diis Doctrina Venus est vel Luna ut vidimus vel Lucifer sive Hesperus Sed ex Poetica ac Civili supra hos coelos statuuntur Mentes quaedam â Syderibus diversae quomodò Jovem Apollinem Junonem Venerem caeterosque Deos Consentes considerare jubet Apuleius Quippe eos inquit Natura Visibus nostris denegavit necnon tamen Intellectu eos mirabundi contemplamur acie mentis acrius contemplantes Quid apertius hic quam ab eo per Deos Consentes intelligi non Corpora Coelestia vel Subcoelestia sed sublimiorem quandam Naturam nec nisi animis conspicuam According to the Philosophick Doctrine concerning the Gods Venus is either the Moon or Lucifer or Hesperus but according to the Poetick and Civil Theology of the Pagans there were certain Eternal Minds placed above the Heavens distinct from the Stars accordingly as Apuleius requires us to consider Jupiter and Apollo Juno and Venus and all those other Gods called Consentes he affirming of them that though Nature had denied them to our sight yet notwithstanding by the diligent contemplation of our Minds we apprehend and admire them Where nothing can be more plain saith Vossius than that the Dii consentes were understood by Apuleius neither to be Celestial nor Subcelestial Bodies but a certain higher Nature perceptible only to our Minds Upon which words of his we shall make these following Remarks First that this Learned Writer seems here as also throughout that whole Book of his to mistake the Philosophick Theology of Scaevola and Varro and others for that which was Physiological only which Physiological Theology of the Pagans will be afterwards declared by us For the Philosophick Theology of the Pagans did not Deifie Natural and Sensible Bodies only but the Principal part thereof was the Asserting of One Supreme and Vniversal Numen from whence all their other Gods were derived Neither was Venus according to this Philosophick and Arcane Theology taken only for the Moon or for Lucifer or Hesperus as this Learned Writer concieves but as we have already proved for the Supreme Deity also either according to its Universal Notion or some Particular Consideration thereof Wherefore the Philosophick Theology both of Scaevola and Varro and others was called Natural not as Physiological only but in another sence as Real and True it being the Theology neither of Cities nor of Stages or Theaters but of the World and of the Wise men in it Philosophy being that properly which considers the Absolute Truth and Nature of things Which Philosophick Theology thereof was opposed both to the Civil and Poetical as consisting in Opinion and Phancy only Our Second Remark is That Vossius does here also seem incongruously to make both the Civil and Poetical Theology as such to Philosophize whereas the First of these was properly nothing but the Law of Cities and Commonwealths together with Vulgar Opinion and Errour and the Second nothing but Phancy Fiction and Fabulosity Poetarum ista sunt saith Cotta in Cicero nos autem Philosophi esse volumus Rerum authores non Fabularum Those things belong to Poets but we would be Philosophers authors of Things or Realities and not of Fables But the main thing which we take notice of in these words of Vossius is this that they seem to imply the Consentes and Select and other Civil and Poetical Gods of the Pagans to have been generally accounted so many Substantial and Eternal Minds or Vnderstanding Beings Supercelestial and Independent their Jupiter being put only in an equality with Apollo Juno Venus and the rest For which since Vossius pretends no other manner of Proof than only from Apuleius his De Deo Socratis who was a Platonick Philosopher we shall here make it evident that he was not rightly understood by Vossius neither which yet ought not to be thought any Derogation from this Eminent Philologer whose Polymathy and Multifarious Learning is readily acknowledged by us that he was not so well versed in all the Niceties and Punctilio's of the Platonick School For though Apuleius do in that Book besides those Visible Gods the Stars take notice of another kind of Invisible ones such as the Twelve Consentes and others which he faith we may animis conjectare per varias Vtilitates in vita agenda animadversas in iis rebus quibus eorum singuli curant make a conjecture of by our minds from the various Vtilities in humane life perceived from those things which each of these care of yet that he was no Bigot in this Civil Theology is manifest from hence because in that very place he declares as well against Superstition as Irreligious Prophaneness And his design there was plainly no other than to reduce the Civil and Poetical Theologies of the Pagans into some handsome conformity and agreement with that Philosophical Natural and Real Theology of theirs which derived all the Gods from One Supreme and Vniversal Numen but this he endeavours to do in the Platonick way himself being much addicted to that Philosophy Hos Deos in sublimi aetheris vertice locatos Plato existimat veros incorporales animales sine ullo neque fine neque exordio sed prorsus ac retro aeviternos corporis contagione suâ quidem naturâ remotos ingenio ad summam beatitudinem porrecto c. Quorum Parentem qui omnium rerum Dominator atque Auctor est solum ab omnibus nexibus patiendi aliquid gerendive nulla vice ad alicujus rei mutua obstrictum cur ego nunc dicere exordiar cum Plato coelesti facundia praeditus frequentissimè praedicet hunc solum majestatis incredibili quadam nimietate ineffabili non posse penuria sermonis humani quavis oratione vel modicà comprehendi All these
sacravit We adore the rising Heads and Springs of great Rivers Every sudden and plentiful Eruption of Waters out of the hidden Caverns of the Earth hath its Altars erected to it and some Pools have been made Sacred for their immense Profundity and Opacity Now this is that which is properly called the Physiological Theology of the Pagans their Personating and Deifying in a certain sence the Things of Nature whether Inanimate Substances or the Affections of Substances A great part of which Physiological Theology was Allegorically conteined in the Poetick Fables of the Gods Eusebius indeed was of opinion that those Poetick Fables were at first only Historical and Herological but that afterwards some went about to Allegorize them into Physiological Sences thereby to make them seem the less impious and ridiculous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the ancient Theology of the Pagans namely Historical of men deceased that were worshipped for Gods which some late Vpstarts have altered devising other Philosophical and Physiological sences of those Histories of their Gods that they might thereby render them the more specious and hide the Impiety of them For they being neither willing to abandon those Fopperies of their forefathers nor yet themselves able to bear the Impiety of these Fables concerning the Gods according to the Literal Sence of them have gone about to cure them thus by Physiological Interpretations Neither can it be doubted but that there was some Mixture of Herology and History in the Poetick Mythology Nor denied that the Pagans of latter times such as Porphyrius and others did excogitate and devise certain new Allegorical sences of their own such as never were intended Origen before both him and Porphyry noting this of the Pagans that when the absurdity of their Fables concerning the Gods was objected and urged against them some of them did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apologizing for these things betake themselves to Allegories But long before the times of Christianity those First Stoicks Zeno Cleanthes and Chrysippus were famous for the great pains which they took in Allegorizing these Poetick Fables of the Gods Of which Cotta in Cicero thus Magnam molestiam suscepit minimè necessariam primus Zeno pòst Cleanthes deindè Chrysippus Commentitiarum Fabulalarum reddere rationem vocabulorum cur quidque ita appellatum sit causas explicare Quod cum facitis illud profecto confitemini longè aliter rem se habere atque hominum opinio sit eos qui Dii appellantur Rerum Naturas esse non Figuras Deorum Zeno first and after him Cleanthes and Chrysippus took a great deal more pains than was needful to give a reason of all those Commentitious Fables of the Gods and of the names that every thing was called by By doing which they confessed that the matter was far otherwise than according to mens opinion in as much as they who are called Gods in them were nothing but the Natures of things From whence it is plain that in the Poetick Theology the Stoicks took it for granted that the Natures of Things were Personated and Deified and that those Gods were not Animal nor indeed Philosophical but Fictitious and nothing but the Things of Nature Allegorized Origen also gives us a Taste of Chrysippus his thus Allegorizing in his interpreting an obscene Picture or Table of Jupiter and Juno in Samos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Grave Philosopher in his writings saith that Matter having received the Spermatick Reasons of God conteineth them within it self for the adorning of the whole World and that Juno in this Picture in Samos signifies Matter and Jupiter God Upon which occasion that pious Father adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the sake of which and innumerable other such like Fables we will never endure to call The God over all by the name of Jupiter but exercising pure Piety towards the Maker of the World will take care not to defile Divine things with impure Names And here we see again according to Chrysippus his Interpretation that Hera or Juno was no Animâ—l nor Real God but only the Nature of Matter Personated and Deified that is a meer Fictitious and Poetick God And we think it is unquestionably evident from Hesiod's Theogonia that many of these Poetick Fables according to their First Intention were really nothing else but Physiology Allegorized and consequently those Gods nothing but the Natures of things Personated and Deified Plato himself though no friend to these Poetick Fables plainly intimates as much in his Second De Rep. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fightings of the Gods and such other things as Homer hath feigned concerning them ought not to be admitted into our Commonwealth whether they be delivered in way of Allegory or without Allegories Because Young men are not able to judge when it is an Allegory and when not And it appears from Dionysius Halicarnass that this was the General opinion concerning the Greekish Fables that some of them were Physically and some Tropologically Allegorical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let no man think me to be ignorant that some of the Greekish Fables are profitable to men partly as declaring the Works of Nature by Allegories partly as being helpful for humane life c. Thus also Cicero Alia quoque ex ratione quidem Physicâ magna fluxit Multitudo Deorum qui induti specie humana Fabulas Poetis suppeditaverunt hominum autem vitam Superstitione omni refercerunt Eusebius indeed seems sometimes to cast it as an Imputation upon the whole Pagan Theology that it did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deifie the Inanimate Nature but this is properly to be understood of this Part of their Theology only which was Physiological and of their Mythology or Poetick Fables of the Gods Allegorized it being otherwise both apparently false and all one as to make them downright Atheists For he that acknowledges no Animant God as hath been declared acknowledges no God at all according to the True Notion of him whether he derive all things from a Fortuitous Motion of Matter as Epicurus and Democritus did or from a Plastick and Orderly but Sensless Nature as some Degenerate Stoicks and Strato the Peripatetick whose Atheism seems to be thus described by Manilius Aut neque Terra Patrem novit nec Flamma nec Aer Aut Humor faciuntque Deum per quatuor artus Et Mundi struxere Globum prohibentque requiri Vltra se quidquam Neither ought this Physiological Theology of the Pagans which consisted only in Personating and Deifying Inanimate Substances and the Natures of Things to be confounded as it hath been by some late Writers with that Philosophical Theology of Scaevola Varro and others which was called Natural also but in another sence as True and Real it being indeed but a Part of the Poetical first and afterward of the Political Theology and owing its Original much to the Phancies of Poets whose Humour
is their Personating and Deifying also the Parts of the World and Things of Nature themselves and so making them so many Gods and Goddesses too Their meaning therein being declared to be really no other than this That God who doth not only Pervade all things but also was the Cause of All things and therefore himself is in a manner All things ought to be worshipped in all the Things of Nature and Parts of the World as also that the Force of every thing was Divine and that in all things that were Beneficial to mankind The Divine Goodness ought to be acknowledged We shall now observe how both those forementioned Principles of Gods Pervading all things and his Being All things which were the Chief Grounds of the Seeming Polytheism of the Pagans were improved and carried on further by those amongst them who had no Higher Notion of the Supreme Deity than as the Soul of the World Which Opinion that it found entertainment amongst so many of them probably might be from hence because it was so obvious for those of them that were Religious to conceive that as themselves consisted of Body and Soul so the Body of the Whole World was not without its Soul neither and that their Humane Souls were as well derived from the Life and Soul of the World as the Earth and Water in their Bodies was from the Earth and Water of the World Now whereas the more refined Pagans as was before observed supposed God to Pervade and Pass thorough All things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnmixedly these concluded God to be according to that Definition of him in Quintilian taken in a rigid sence Spiritum omnibus Partibus Immistum a Spirit Immingled with all the Parts of the World or else in Manilius his Language Infusumque Deum Caelo Terrisque Fretoque Infused into the Heaven Earth and Seas Sacroque meatu Conspirare Deum and intimately to conspire with his own Work the World as being almost one with it Upon which account he was commonly called Nature also that being thus defined by some of the Stoicks Deus Mundo permistus God Mingled throughout with the World and Divina Ratio toti Mundo insita The Divine Reason inserted into the whole World Which Nature notwithstanding in way of distinction from the Particular Natures of things was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Communis Natura the Common Nature And it was plainly declared by them not to be a Sensless Nature according to that of Balbus in Cicero Natura est quae continet Mundum omnem eumque tuetur atque ea quidem non sine Sensu atque Ratione It is Nature by which the whole World is conteined and upheld but this such a Nature as is not without Sense and Reason As it is elsewhere said to be Perfect and Eternal Reason the Divine Mind and Wisdom conteining also under it all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spermatick Principles by which the things of Nature commonly so called are effected Wherefore we see that such Naturalists as these may well be allowed to be Theists Moses himself in Strabo being accounted one of them whereas those that acknowledge no Higher Principle of the World than a Sensless Nature whether Fortuitous or Orderly and Methodical cannot be accounted any other than Absolute Atheists Moreover this Soul of the World was by such of these Pagans as admitted no Incorporeal Substance it self concluded to be a Body too but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Most Subtil and Most Swift Body as was before observed out of Plato though endued with Perfect Mind and Vnderstanding as well as with Spermatick Reasons which insinuating it self into all other Bodies did Permeate and Pervade the whole Universe and frame all things inwardly Mingling it self with all Heraclitus and Hippasus thinking this to be Fire and Diogenes Apolloniates Air whom Simplicius who had read some of his then extant Works vindicates from that Imputation of Atheism which Hippo and Anaximander lye under Again whereas the more Sublimated Pagans affirmed the Supreme God to be All so as that he was nevertheless something Above All too he being Above the Soul of the World and probably Aeschylus in that forecited passage of his is to be understood after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter is the Ether Jupiter is the Earth Jupiter is the Heaven Jupiter is All things and yet something Higher than all or Above all those Pagans who acknowledged no Higher Numen than the Soul of the World made God to be All Things in a grosser sence they supposing the whole Corporeal World Animated to be also the Supreme Deity For though God to them were Principally and Originally that Eternal Vnmade Soul and Mind which diffuseth it self thorough all things yet did they conceive that as the Humane Soul and Body both together make up one whole Rational Animal or Man so this Mundane Soul and its Body the World did in lke manner both together make up One Entire Divine Animal or God It is true indeed that as the Humane Soul doth Principally act in some one Part of the Body which therefore hath been called the Hegemonicon and Principale some taking this to be the Brain others the Heart but Strato in Tertullian ridiculously the Place betwixt the Eye-browes so the Stoicks did suppose the Great Soul or Mind of the World to act Principally in some one Part thereof which what it was notwithstanding they did not all agree upon as the Hegemonicon or Principale and this was sometimes called by them Emphatically God But nevertheless they all acknowledged this Mundane Soul as the Souls of other Animals to Pervade Animate or Enliven and Actuate more or less its whole Body The World This is plainly declared by Laertius in the Life of Zeno. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Stoicks affirm that the World is governed by Mind and Providence this Mind passing through all the Parts of it as the Soul doth in us Which yet doth not act in all parts alike but in some more in some less it passing through some parts only as a Habit as through the bones and Nerves but through others as Mind or Vnderstanding as through that which is called the Hegemonicon or Principale So the whole World being a Living and Rational Animal hath its Hegemonicon or Principal Part too which according to Antipater is the Aether to Possidonius the Air to Cleanthes the Sun c. And they say also that this First God is as it were sensibly Diffused through all Animals and Plants but through the Earth it self only as a Habit. Wherefore the whole World being thus Acted and Animated by one Divine Soul is it self according to these Stoicks also The Supreme God Thus Didymus in Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Stoicks call the whole World God and Origen against Celsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greeks universally affirm the World to be a God but the Stoicks the First and Chief God· And
accordingly Manilius Quâ pateat Mundum Divino Numine verti Atque Ipsum esse Deum Whereby it may appear the World to be Governed by a Divine Mind and also it self to be God As likewise Seneca the Philosopher Totum hoc quo continemur Vnum est Deus est This whole World within which we are contained is both One thing and God Which is not to be understood of the Meer Matter of the World as it is nothing but a Heap of Atoms or as endued with a Plastick and Sensless Nature only but of it as Animated by such a Soul as besides Sense was originally endued with perfect Understanding and as deriving all its Godship from thence For thus Varro in St. Austin declares both his own and the Stoical Sence concerning this Point Dicit idem Varro adhuc de Naturali Theologia praeloquens Deum se arbitrari esse Animam Mundi quem Graeci vocant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hunc ipsum Mundum esse Deum Sed sicut Hominem Sapientem cum sit ex Corpore Animo tamen ab Animo dici Sapientem ita Mundum Deum dici ab Animo cum sit ex Animo Corpore The same Varro discoursing concerning Natural Theology declareth that according to his own sence God is the Soul of the World which the Greeks call Cosmos and that this World it self is also God But that this is so to be understood that as a Wise man though consisting of Soul and Body yet is denominated Wise only from his Mind or Soul so the World is denominated God from its Mind or Soul only it consisting both of Mind and Body Now if the Whole Animated World be the Supreme God it plainly follows from thence that the Several Parts and Members thereof must be the Parts and Members of God and this was readily acknowledged by Seneca Membra sumus Corporis magni We are all Members of One great Body and Totum hoc Deus est Socii ejus Membra sumus This whole World is God and we are not only his Members but also his Fellows or Companions as if our Humane Souls had a certain kind of Fellowship also with that Great Soul of the Vniverse And accordingly the Soul of the World and the whole Mundane Animal was frequently worshipped by the Pagans in these its several Members the chief Parts of the World and the most important Things of Nature as it were by Piece-meal Nevertheless it doth not at all follow from thence that these were therefore to them Really so many Several Gods for then not only every Man and every Contemptible Animal every Plant and Herb and Pile of Grass every River and Hill and all things else whatsoever must be so many several Gods And that the Pagans themselves did not take them for such Origen observes against that Assertion of Celsus That if the Whole were God then the Several Parts thereof must needs be Gods or Divine too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From hence it would follow that not only Men must be Divine and Gods but also all Brute Animals too they being Parts of the World and Plants to boot Nay Rivers and Mountains and Seas being Parts of the World likewise if the Whole World be God must according to Celsus needs be Gods also Whereas the Greeks themselves will not affirm this but they would only call those Spirits or Demons which preside over these Rivers and Seas Gods Wherefore this Vniversal Assertion of Celsus is false even according to the Greeks themselves That if the whole be God then all the Parts thereof must needs be Divine or Gods It following from thence that Flyes and Gnats and Worms and all kind of Serpents and Birds and Fishes are all Divine Animals or Gods Which they themselves who assert the World to be God will not affirm Wherefore though it be true that the Pagans did many times Personate and Deifie the Chief Parts of the World and Things of Nature as well as they did the Several Powers and Vertues of the Mundane Soul diffused through the whole World yet did not the intelligent amongst them therefore look upon these as so many True and Proper Gods but only worship them as Parts and Members of One Great Mundane Animal or rather Worship the Soul of the whole World their Supreme Deity in them all as its various Manifestations This St. Austin intimates when writing against Faustus the Manichean he prefers even the Pagan Gods before the Manichean Jam verò Coelum Terra Mare Aer Sol Luna caetera sydera omnia haec manifesta oculis apparent atque ipsis sensibus praesto sunt Quae cum Pagani tanquam Deos colunt vel tanquam PARTES VNIVS MAGNI DEI nam universum Mundum quidam eorum putant MAXIMVM DEVM ea colunt quae sunt Vos autem cum ea colatis quae omninò non sunt propinquiores essetis Verae Pietati si saltem Pagani essetis qui Corpora colunt etsi non colenda tamen vera Now the Heaven Earth Sea and Air Sun Moon and Stars are Things all manifest and really present to our senses which when the Pagans Worship as Gods or as PARTS OF ONE GREAT GOD for some of them think the Whole World to be the GREATEST GOD they Worship things that are so that you worshipping things that are not would be nearer to true Piety than you are were you Pagans and worshipped Bodies too which though they ought not to be worshipped yet are they True and Real Things But this is further insisted upon by the same St. Austin in his Book De C. D. where after that large Enumeration of the Pagan Gods before set down he thus convinces their Folly in worshipping the Several Divided Members Parts and Powers of the One Great God after that manner Personated Haec omnia quae dixi quaecunque non dixi non enim omnia dicenda arbitratus sum Hi omnes Dii Deaeque sit Vnus Jupiter sive sint ut quidam volunt omnia ista Partes ejus sive Virtutes ejus sicut eis videtur quibus eum placet esse Mundi Animum quae sententia velut magnorum multorumque Doctorum est Haec inquam si ita sint quod quale sit nondum interim quaero Quid perderent si Vnum Deum colerent prudentiori Compendio Quid enim ejus contemneretur cum ipse coleretur Si autem metuendum sit nè Praetermissae sive Neglectae Partes ejus irascerentur non ergo ut volunt velut Vnius Animantis haec tota vita est quae Omnes simul continet Deos quasi Suas VIRTVTES vel MEMBRA vel PARTES sed suam quaeque Pars habet vitam à caeteris separatam si praeter alteram irasci altera potest alia placari alia concitari Si autem dicitur Omnia simul id est Totum ipsum Jovem potuisse offendi si PARTES ejus non etiam
singillatim minutatimque colerentur stultè dicitur Nulla quippe earum praetermitteretur cum ipse Vnus qui haberet Omnia coleretur All these things which we have now said and many more which we have not said for we did not think fit to mention all All these Gods and Goddesses let them be One and the same Jupiter whether they will have them to be his PARTS or his POWERS and VERTVES according to the sence of those who think God to be the Soul or Mind of the Whole World which is the opinion of many and great Doctors This I say if it be so which what it is we will not now examine What would these Pagans lose if in a more prudent compendium they should worship One only God For what of him could be despised when his whole self was worshipped But if they fear left his PARTS pretermitted or neglected should be angry or take offence then is it not as they pretend the Life of One Great Animal which at once conteins all the Gods as his VERTVES or MEMBERS or PARTS but every Part hath its own Life by it self separate from the rest since One of them may be angry when another is pleased and the contrary But if it should be said that all together that is the whole Jupiter might be offended if his Parts were not worshipped all of them Severally and Singly this would be foolishly said because none of the Parts can be pretermitted when He that hath All is Worshipped Thus do the Pagans in Athanasius also declare that they did not worship the several Parts of the World as Really so many True and Proper Gods but only as the Parts or Members of their One Supreme God that Great Mundane Animal or Whole Animated World taken all together as one thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Pagans themselves will acknowledge that the Divided Parts of the World taken severally are but indigent and imperfect things nevertheless do they contend that as they are by them joyned all together into One Great Body enlivened by one Soul so is the whole of them truly and properly God And now we think it is sufficiently evident that though these Pagans Verbally Personated and Deified not only the several Powers and Vertues of the One Supreme God or Mundane Soul diffused thoroughout the whole World but also the several Parts of the World it self and the Natures of Things yet their meaning herein was not to make these in themselves really so many several True and Proper Gods much less Independent Ones but to worship One Supreme God which to them was the whole Animated World in those his several Parts and Members as it were by Piece-meal or under so many Inadequate Conceptions The Pagans therefore were plainly Divided in their Natural Theology as to their opinions concerning the Supreme God some of them conceiving him to be nothing Higher than a Mundane Soul Whereas others of them to use Origen's Language did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transcend all the sensible Nature and thinking God not at all to be seated there look'd for him above all Corporeal things Now the Former of these Pagans worshipped the whole Corporeal World as the Body of God but the Latter of them though they had Higher thoughts of God than as a Mundane Soul yet supposing Him to have been the Cause of all things and so at first to have Conteined all things within himself as likewise that the World after it was made was not Cut off from him nor subsisted alone by it self as a Dead Thing but was Closely united to him and Livingly dependent on him these I say though they did not take the World to be God or the Body of God yet did they also look upon it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which was Divine and Sacred and supposed that God was to be worshipped in All or that the whole World was to be worshipped as his Image or Temple Thus Plutarch though much disliking the Deifying of Inanimate Things doth himself nevertheless approve of worshipping God in the whole Corporeal World he affirming it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most Holy and most God-becoming Temple And the ancient Persians or Magi who by no means would allow of worshipping God in any Artificial Temples made with mens hands did notwithstanding thus worship God Sub Dio and upon the Tops of Mountains in the whole Corporeal World as his Natural Temple as Cicero testifieth Nec sequor Magos Persarum quibus auctoribus Xerxes inflammasse Templa Graeciae dicitur quod Parietibus includerent Deos quibus omnia deberent esse patentia ac libera quorumque hic Mundus Omnis Templum esset Domicilium Neither do I adhere to the Persian Magi by whose suggestion and perswasion Xerxes is said to have burnt all the Temples of the Greeks because they enclosed and shut up their Gods within walls to whom all things ought to be open and free and whose Temple and Habitation this whole World is And therefore when Diogenes Laertius writeth thus of these Magi that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Fire and Earth and Water to be Gods but condemn all Statues and Images we conceive the meaning hereof to be no other than this that as they worshipped God in no Temple save only that of the whole World so neither did they allow any other Statues of Images of him than the Things of Nature and Parts of the World such as Fire and Earth and Water called therefore by them in this sence and no other Gods For thus are they clearly represented by Clemens Alexandrinus and that according to the express Testimony of Dino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dinon affirmeth that the Persian Magi sacrificed under the open Heavens they accounting Fire and Water to be the only Statues and Images of the Gods For I would not here conceal their ignorance neither who thinking to avoid One Errour fall into another whilest they allow not Wood and Stones to be the Images of the Gods as the Greeks do nor Ichneumones and Ibides as the Egyptians but only Fire and Water as Philosophers Which difference betwixt the Pagan Theologers that some of them look'd upon the whole World as God or as the Body of God others only as the Image or the Temple of God is thus taken notice of by Macrobius upon Scipio's Dream where the World was called a Temple Benè autem Vniversus Mundus Dei Templum vocatur propter illos qui aestimant nihil esse aliud Deum nisi Coelum ipsum Caelestia ista quae cernimus Ideò ut Summi Omnipotentiam Dei ostenderet posse vix intelligi nunquam posse videri quicquid humano subjicitur aspectui Templum ejus vocavit ut qui haec veneratur ut Templa cultum tamen maximum debeat Conditori sciatque quisquis in usum Templi hujus inducitur ritu sibi vivendum Sacerdotis The whole World is well calledhere the Temple of God
betwixt their Second and Third Hypostasis so do they Debase the Deity therein too much confound God and the Creature together laying a Foundation not only for Cosmo-Latry or World-Idolatry in general but also for the grossest and most sottish of all Idolatries the worshipping of the Inanimate Parts of the World themselves in pretence as Parts and Members of this great Mundane Animal and Sensible God It is true indeed that Origen and some others of the ancient Christian Writers have supposed that God may be said in some sence to be the Soul of the World Thus in that Book Peri Archοn Sicut Corpus nostrum unum ex multis Membris aptatum est ab una Anima continetur ita Vniversum Mundum velut Animal quoddam Immane opinandum puto quod quasi ab una Animâ Virtute Dei ac Ratione teneatur Quod etiam à Sanctâ Scripturâ indicari arbitror per illud quod dictum est per Prophetam Nonne Coelum Terram ego repleo dicit Dominus Coelum mihi Sedes Terra autem Scabellum pedum meorum Et quod Salvator cum ait non esse jurandum neque per Coelum quia Sedes Dei est neque per Terram quia Scabellum pedum ejus Sed illud quod ait Paulus Quoniam in ipso Vivimus Movemur Sumus Quomodo enim in Deo Vivimus Movemur Sumus nisi quod in Virtute suâ Vniversum constringit continet Mundum As our own Body is made up of many Members and conteined by One Soul so do I conceive that the whole World is to be looked upon as One huge great Animal which is conteined as it were by One Soul the Vertue and Reason of God And so much seems to be intimated by the Scripture in sundry places as in that of the Prophet Do not I fill Heaven and Earth And again Heaven is my Throne and the Earth my Footstool And in that of our Saviour Swear not at all neither by Heaven because it is the Throne of God nor by the Earth because it is his Footstool And lastly in that of Paul to the Athenians For in him we Live and Move and have our Being For how can we be said to Live and Move and have our Being in God unless because he by his Vertue and Power does Constringe and Contein the whole World And how can Heaven be the Throne of God and the Earth his Footstool unless his Vertue and Power fill all things both in Heaven and Earth Nevertheless God is here said by Origen to be but Quasi-Anima As it were The Soul of the World As if he should have said That all the Perfection of a Soul is to be attributed to God in respect of the World he Quickening and Enlivening all things as much as if he were the Very Soul of it and all the Parts thereof were his Living Members And perhaps the whole Deity ought not to be look'd upon according to Aristotle's Notion thereof meerly as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Immovable Essence for then it is not conceivable how it could either Act upon the World or be Sensible of any thing therein or to what purpose any Devotional Addresses should be made by us to such an Vnaffectible Inflexible Rockie and Adamantine Being Wherefore all the Perfection of a Mundane Soul may perhaps be attributed to God in some sence and he called Quasi-Anima Mundi As it were the Soul thereof Though St. Cyprian would have this properly to belong to the Third Hypostasis or Person of the Christian Trinity viz. The Holy Ghost But there is something of Imperfection also plainly cleaving and adhering to this Notion of a Mundane Soul besides something of Paganity likewise necessarily consequent thereupon which cannot be admitted by us Wherefore God or the Third Divine Hypostasis cannot be called the Soul of the World in this sence as if it were so Immersed thereinto and so Passive from it as our Soul is Immersed into and Passive from its Body Nor as if the World and this Soul together made up one Entire Animal each Part whereof were incomplete alone by it self And that God or the Third Hypostasis of the Christian Trinity is not to be accounted in this Sence properly the Soul of the World according to Origen himself we may learn from these words of his Solius Dei id est Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti Naturae id proprium est ut sine Materiali Substantia absque ulla Corporeae adjectionis societate intelligatur subsistere It is proper to the Nature of God alone that is of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost to subsist without any Material Substance or Body Vitally Vnited to it Where Origen affirming that all Created Souls and Spirits whatsoever have always some Body or other Vitally Vnited to them and that it is the Property only of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity not to be Vitally Vnited to any Body as the Soul thereof whether this Assertion of his be true or no which is a thing not here to be discussed he does plainly hereby declare that God or the Third Hypostasis of the Trinity is not to be accounted in a true and proper sence the Soul of the World And it is certain that the more Refined Platonists were themselves also of this Perswasion and that their Third God or Divine Hypostasis was neither the Whole World as supposed to be Animated nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Immediate Soul of this Mundane Animal but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Supermundane Soul that is such a thing as though it Preside over the Whole World and take Cognizance of all things in it yet is not properly an Essential Part of that Mundane Animal but a Being Elevated above the same For thus Proclus plainly affirmeth not only of Amelius but also of Porphyrius himself who likewise pretended to follow Plotinus therein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After Amelius Porphyrius thinking to agree with Plotinus calls the Supermundane Soul the Immediate Opificer or Maker of the World and that Mind or Intellect to which it is converted not the Opificer himself but the Paradigm thereof And though Proclus there make a question whether or no this was Plotinus his true meaning yet Porphyrius is most to be credited herein he having had such an intimate acquaintance with him Wherefore according to these Three Platonist Plotinus Amelius and Porphyrius the Third Hypostasis of the Platonick Trinity is neither the World nor the Immediate Soul of the Mundane Animal but a certain Supermundane Soul which also was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Opificer and Creator of the World and therefore no Creature Now the Corporeal World being supposed by these Platonists also to be an Animal they must therefore needs acknowledge a Double Soul one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Immediate Soul of this Mundane Animal and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Energy This is the Immediate and as it were Manuary Opificer of the whole World and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which actually Governs Rules and Presideth over all Amelius in that Passage of his before cited out of Proclus calling these Three Divine Hypostases Three Minds and Three Kings styles the First of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him that is The Second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him that Hath and the Third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him that Beholds In which Expressions though Peculiar to himself he denotes an Essential Dependence and Gradual Subordination in them Now that which is most liable to exception in this Platonick Scale or Gradâ—tion of the Deity sâ—ems to be the Difference betwixt the First and the Second For whereas the Essential Character of the Second is made to be Vnderstanding Reason and Wisdom it seems to follow from hence that either the First and the Second are really nothing else but two different Names or Inadequate Conceptions of One and the same thing or else if they be distinct Hypostases or Persons that the First of them must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 devoid of Mind Reason and Wisdom which would be very absurd To which all the reply we can make is as follows First that this is indeed one Peculiar Arcanum of the Platonick and Pythagorick Theology which yet seems to have been first derived from Orpheus and the Egyptians or rather from the Hebrews themselves that whereas the Pagan Theologers generally concluded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Mind and Vnderstanding properly so called was the Oldest of all things the Highest Principle and First Original of the World those others placed something above it and consequently made it to be not the First but the Second Which they did chiefly upon these Three following Grounds First Because Vnderstanding Reason Knowledg and Wisdom cannot be conceived by us mortals otherwise than so as to contain something of Multiplicity in them whereas it seems most reasonable to make the First Principle of all not to be Number or Multitude but a perfect Monad or Vnity Thus Plotinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Intellection as well as Vision is in its own nature an Indefinite thing and is determined by the Intelligible therefore it is said that Ideas as Numbers are begotten from Infinite Duality and Vnity And such is Intellect which consequently is not Simple but Many it contemplating Many Ideas and being compounded of Two That which is Vnderstood and that which Vnderstands And again elswhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Principle of every thing is more Simple than the thing it self Wherefore the Sensible World was made from Intellect or the Intelligible and before this must there needs be something more Simple still For Many did not proceed from Many but this Multiform thing Intellect proceeded from that which is not Multiform but Simple as Number from Vnity To this purpose does he argue also in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If that which understands be Many or contein Multitude in it then that which conteins no Multitude does not properly understand and this is the First thing but Intellection and Knowledge properly so called are to be placed among things which follow after it and are Second And he often concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Knowledge properly so called by reason of its Multiplicity belongs to the Second Rank of Being and not the First Another Ground or Reason is Because in order of Nature there must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something Intelligible before Intellect and from hence does Plotinus conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That to Vnderstand is not the First neither in Essence nor in Dignity but the Second a thing in order of Nature after the First Good and springing up from thence as that which is moved with desire towards it Their Third and last Ground or Reason is Because Intellection and Knowledge are not the Highest Good that therefore there is some Substantial thing in order of Nature Superiour to Intellect Which Consideration Plato much insisteth upon in his sixth Book De Republica Now upon these several Accounts do the Platonists confidently conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Supreme Deity is more Excellent and Better than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason or the Word Intellect and Sense he affording these things but not being these himself And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which was Generated from the First Principle was Logos Word or Reason Manifold But the First Principle it self was not Word If you demand therefore How Word or Reason should proceed from that which is not Word or Reason we answer as that which is Boniform from Goodness it self With which Platonick Pythagorick Doctrine exactly agreeth Philo the Jew also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God which is before the Word or Reason is better and more excellent than all the Rational Nature neither is it fit that any thing which is Generated should be perfectly like to that which is Originally from it self and above all And indeed we should not have so much insisted upon this had it not been by reason of a Devout Veneration that we have for all the Scripture-mysteries which Scripture seems to give no small Countenance to this Doctrine when it makes in like manner an Eternal Word and Wisdom to be the Second Hypostasis of the Divine Triad and the First-begotten Son or Off-spring of God the Father And Athanasius as was before observed very much complieth here also with the Platonick Notion when he denies that there was any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Reason or Wisdom before that Word and Son of God which is the Second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity What then Shall we say that the First Hypostasis or Person in the Platonick Trinity if not the Christian also is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sensless and Irrational and altogether devoid of Mind and Vnderstanding Or would not this be to introduce a certain kind of Mysterious Atheism and under pretence of Magnifying and Advancing the Supreme Deity Monstrously to Degrade the same For why might not Sensless Matter as well be supposed to be the First Original of all things as a Sensless Incorporeal Being Plotinus therefore who rigidly and superstitiously adheres to Plato's Text here which makes the First and Highest Principle of all to be such a Being as by reason of its Absolute and Transcendent Perfection is not only above Vnderstanding Knowledge and Reason but also above Essence it self which therefore he can find no other names for but only Vnity and Goodness Substantial and consequently Knowledge and Wisdom to be but a Second or Post Nate Thing though Eternal but notwithstanding does seem to labour under this Metaphysical Prosundity he sometimes endeavours to solve the difficulty
Power One Will and One Energy be much rather called One God But though it be true that Athanasius in this place if at least this were a Genuine Foetus of Athanasius may Justly be thought to attribute too much to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Common Nature Essence or Substance of all the Three Persons as to the making of them to be truly and properly One God and that those Scripture-passages are but weakly urged to this purpose yet is it plain that he did not acquiesce in this only but addeth other things to it also as their having not only One Will but also One Energy or Action of which more afterwards Moreover Athanasius elsewhere plainly implieth that this Common Essence or Nature of the Godhead is not sufficient alone to make all the Three Hypostases One God As in his Fourth Oration against the Arians where he tells us that his Trinity of Divine Hypostases cannot therefore be accounted Three Gods nor Three Principles because they are not resembled by him to Three Original Suns but only to the Sun and its Splendour and the Light from both Now Three Suns according to the Language of Athanasius have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Common Nature Essence and Substance and therefore are Coessential or Consubstantial and since they cannot be accounted one Sun it is manifest that according to Athanasius this Specifick Identity or Unity is not sufficient to make the Three Divine Hypostases One God Again the same Athanasius in his Exposition of Faith writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither do we acknowledge Three Hypostases Divided or Separate by themselves as is to be seen corporeally in men that we may not comply with the Pagan Polytheism From whence it is Evident that neither Three Separate Men though Coessential to Athanasius were accounted by him to be One Man nor yet the Community of the Specifick Nature and Essence of the Godhead can alone by it self exclude Polytheism from the Trinity Wherefore the true reason why Athanasius laid so great a stress upon this Homoousiotes or Coessentially of the Trinity in order to the Vnity of the Godhead in them was not because this alone was sufficient to make them One God but because they could not be so without it This Athanasius often urges against the Arians as in his Fourth Oration where he tells them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they must needs introduce a Plurality of Gods because of the Heterogeneity of their Trinity And again afterwards determining that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Species of the Godhead in Father Son and Spirit he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus do we acknowledge one only God in the Trinity and maintain it more Religiously than those Hereticks do who introduce a Multiform Deity consisting of divers Species we supposing only One Vniversal Godhead in the whole For if it be not thus but the Son be a Creature made out of nothing however called God by these Arians then must He and his Father of necessity be Two Gods one of them a Creator the other a Creature In like manner in his Books Of the Nicene Council he affirmeth concerning the Arians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they make in a manner Three Gods dividing the Holy Monad into Three Heterogeneous Substances Separate from one another Whereas the right Orthodox Trinity on the contrary is elsewhere thus described by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy and perfect Trinity Theologized in the Father Son and Spirit hath nothing Aliene Foreign or Extraneous intermingled with it nor is it compounded of Heterogeneous things the Creator and Creature joyned together And whereas the Arians interpreted that of our Saviour Christ I and my Father are One only in respect of Consent or Agreement of Will Athanasius shewing the insufficiency hereof concludeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore besides this Consent of Will there must of necessity be another Vnity of Essence or Substance also acknowledged in the Father and the Son Where by Vnity of Essence or Substance that Athanasius did not mean a Vnity of Singular and Individual but of General or Vniversal Essence only appears plainly from these following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For those things which are Made or Created though they may have an Agreement of Will with their Creator yet have they this by Participation only and in a way of Motion as he who retaining not the same was cast out of Heaven But the Son being begotten from the Essence or Substance of the Father is Essentially or Substantially One with him So that the Opposition here is betwixt Vnity of Consent with God in Created Beings which are Mutable and Vnity of Essence in that which is Vncreated and Immutably of the same Will with the Father There are also many other places in Athanasius which though some may understand of the Vnity of Singular Essence yet were they not so by him intended but either of Generick or Specifick Essence only or else in such other sence as shall be afterwards declared As for Example in his Fourth Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We acknowledge only One Godhead in the Trinity where the following words plainly imply this to be understood in part at least of One Common or General Essence of the Godhead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Because if it be not so but the Word be a Creature made out of Nothing he is either not truly God or if he be called by that name then must they be two Gods one a Creator the other a Creature Again when in the same Book it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Son and the Father are One thing in the Propriety of Nature and in the Sameness of one Godhead it is evident from the Context that this is not to be understood of a Sameness of Singular Essence but partly of a Common and Generical One and partly of such another Sameness or Unity as will be hereafter expressed Lastly when the Three Hypostases are somewhere said by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Essence or Substance this is not to be understood neither in that place as if they had all Three the same Singular Essence but in some of those other Sences before mentioned But though Athanasius no where declare the Three Hypostases of the Trinity to have only One and the same Singular Essence but on the contrary denies them to be Monoousian and though he lay a great stress upon their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Specifick or Generick Vnity and Coessentiality in order to their being One God for as much as without this they could not be God at all yet doth he not rely wholly upon this as alone sufficient to that purpose but addeth certain other considerations thereunto to make it out in manner as followeth First that this Trinity is not a Trinity of Principles but that there is only One Principle
or Fountain of the Godhead in it from which the other are derived Thus does he write in his Fifth Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is but One Principle and accordingly but One God Again in his Book against the Sabellianists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are not Two Gods both because there are not Two Fathers and because that which is Begotten is not of a different Essence from that which Begat For he that introduceth Two Principles Preacheth Two Gods which was the Impiety of Marcion Accordingly the same Athanasius declareth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Essence or Substance of the Father is the Principle and Root and Fountain of the Son And in like manner doth he approve of this Doctrine of Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God the Father is the First Fountain of all Good things but the Son a River poured out from him To the same purpose is it also when he compareth the Father and the Son to the Water and the Vapour arising from it to the Light and the Splendour to the Prototype and the Image And he concludeth the Unity of the Godhead from hence in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Divine Trinity must needs be collected and gathered up together under that omnipotent God of the whole World as under One Head But the chief force of this Consideration is only to exclude the Doctrine of the Marcionists who made More Independent and Self-existent Principles and Gods Notwithstanding which it might still be objected that the Christian Trinity is a Trinity of Distinct Subordinate Gods in opposition whereunto this argument seems only to prepare the way to what follows namely of the close Conjuction of these Three Hypostases into One God forasmuch as were they Three Independent Principles there could not be any Coalescence of them into One. In the next place therefore Athanasius further addeth that these Three Divine Hypostases are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Separate and Disjoyned Beings but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indivisibly Vnited to one another Thus in his Fifth Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father and the Son are both one thing in the Godhead and in that the Word being begotten from Him is Indivisibly and Inseparably conjoyned with him Where when he affirmeth the Father and the Son to be One in the Godhead it is plain that he doth not mean them to have One and the same Singular Essence but only Generical and Vniversal because in the following words he supposes them to be Two but Indivisibly and Inseparably United together Again in his Book De Sent. Dionys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Son is Indivisible from the Father as the Splendour is from the Light And afterwards in the same Book he insisteth further upon this Point according to the sence of Dionysius after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Dionysius teacheth that the Son is Cognate with the Father and Indivisible from him as Reason is from the Mind and the River from the Fountain Who is there therefore that would go about to alienate Reason from the Mind and to separate the River from the Fountain making up a wall between them or to cut off the Splendour from the Light Thus also in his Epistle to Serapion that the Holy Ghost is not a Creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let these men first divide the Splendour from the Light or Wisdom from him that is Wise or else let them wonder no more how these things can be Elsewhere Athanasius calls the whole Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Trinity Vndivided and Vnited to it self Which Athanasian Indivisibility of the Trinity is not so to be understood as if Three were not Three in it but first of all that neither of these could be without the other as the Original Light or Sun could not be without the Splendour nor the Splendour without the Original Light and neither one nor t'other of them without a Diffused Derivative Light Wherefore God the Father being an Eternal Sun must needs have also an Eternal Splendour and an Eternal Light And Secondly that these are so Nearly and Intimately Conjoyned together that there is a kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Continuity betwixt them which yet is not to be understood in the way of Corporeal Things but so as is agreeable to the Nature of things Incorporeal Thirdly Athanasius ascendeth yet higher affirming the Hypostases of the Trinity not only to be Indivisibly Conjoyned with one another but also to have a Mutual Inexistence in each other which Latter Greek Fathers have called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Circuminsession To this purpose does he cite the Words of Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Reason is the Efflux of the Mind which in men is derived from the Heart into the Tongue where it is become another Reason or Word differing from that in the Heart and yet do these both Mutually Exist in each other they belonging to one another and so though being Two are One Thing Thus are the Father and the Son One thing they being said to Exist in each other And Athanasius further illustrates this also by certain Similitudes as that again of the Original Light and the Splendour he affirming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Original Light is in the Splendor and again the Splendor in the Sun and also that of the Prototype and the Image or the King and his Picture which he thus insisteth upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Picture is contained the Form and Figure of the King and in the King the Form and Figure of the Picture And therefore if any one when he had seen the Picture should afterward desire to see the King the Picture would by a Prosopopoeia bespeak him after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I and the King am One for I am in him and he is in me and what you take notice of in me the same may you observe in him also and what you see in him you may see likewise in me he therefore that worshippeth the Image therein worshippeth the King the Image being nothing but the Form of the King Elsewhere in the Fourth Oration he thus insisteth upon this Particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Son is in the Father as may be conceived from hence because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Essence of the Father he being derived from it as the Splendour from the Light and the River from the Fountain so that he who sees the Son sees that which is the Fathers own and proper Again the Father is in the Sun because that which is the Fathers own and proper that is the Son accordingly as the Sun is also in the Splendour the Mind in Reason and the Fountain in the River What Cavils the Arrians had against this Doctrine Athanasius also enforms us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here the Arians begin
to quarrel with that of our Lord I am in the Father and the Father in me objecting How is it possible that both the Former should be in the Latter and the Latter in the Former Or how can the Father being Greater be received in the Son who is Lesser And yet what wonder is it if the Son should be in the Father since it is written of us men also That in him we Live and Move and have our Being In way of reply whereunto Athanasius first observes that the Ground of this Arian Cavillation was the Grossness of their Apprehensions and that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conceive of Incorporeal things after a Corporeal manner And then does he add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Father and Son are not as they suppose Transvasated and Poured out one into another as into an Empty Vessel as if the Son filled up the Concavity of the Father and again the Father that of the Son and neither of them were full or perfect in themselves For all this is proper to Bodies wherefore though the Father be in some sence Greater than the Son yet notwithstanding may he be in him after an Incorporeal manner And he replieth to their Last Cavil thus That the Son is not so in the Father as we our selves are said to Live and Move and Be in God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For he himself from the Fountain of the Father is that Life in whom all things are quickned and consist neither does he who is the Life live in another Life which were to suppose him not to be the Life it self Nor saith he must it be conceived that the Father is no otherwise in the Son than he is in holy men Corroborating of them for the Son himself is the Power and Wisdom of God and all Creatâ—d Beings are sanctified by a Participation of him in the Spirit Wherefore this Perichoresis or Mutual In-being of the Father and the Son is to be understood after a Peculiar manner so as that they are Really thereby One and what the Son and Holy Ghost doth the Father doth in them accordig to that of Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Father and so the Father exercises a Providence over all things in the Son Lastly the same Athanasius in sundry places still further supposes those Three Divine Hypostases to make up one Entire Divinity aftâ—r the same manner as the Fountain and the Stream make up one Entire River or the Root and the Stock and the Branches one Entire Tree And in this sence also is the whole Trinity said by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity and One Nature and One Essence and One God And accordingly the word Homousios seems here to be taken by Athanasius in a further sence besides that before mentioned not only for things Agreeing in one Common and General Essence as Three Individual men are Coessential with one another but also for such as concurrently together make up One Entire Thing and are therefore Joyntly Essential thereunto For when he affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Tree is Congenerous or Homogenial with the Root and the Branches Coessential with the Vine his meaning is that the Root Stock and Branches are not only of One Kind but also all together make up the Entire Essence of One Plant or Tree In like manner those Three Hypostases the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not only Congenerous and Coessential as having all the Essence of the Godhead alike in them but also as Concurrently Making up one Entire Divinity Accordingly whereunto Athanasius further concludes thâ—t these Three Divine Hypostases have not a Consent of Will only but Essentially one and the Self Same Will and that they do also joyntly produce ad extra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and the Self-same Energy Operation or Action nothing being Peculiar to the Son as such but only the Oeconomy of the Incarnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Trinity is like it self and by Nature Indivisible and there is One Energy or Action of it for the Father By the Word In the Holy Ghost doth all things And thus is the Vnity of the Holy Trinity conserved and One God preached in the Church Namely such as is Above all and By or Through all and In all Above all as the Father the Principle and Fountain Through all by the Word and In all by the Holy Spirit And elsewhere he writeth often to the same purpose Thus have we given a true and full account how according to Athanasius the Three Divine Hypostases though not Monoousious but Homoousious only are Really but One God or Divinity In all which doctrine of his there is nothing but what a True and Genuine Platonist would readily suâ—scribe to From whence it may be concluded that the right Platonick Trinity differs not so much from the Doctrine of the Ancient Church as some late Writers have supposed Hitherto hath the Platonick Christian endeavoured partly to Rectifie and Reform the True and Genuine Platonick Trinity and partly to Reconcile it with the Doctrine of the Ancient Church Nevertheless to prevent all mistakes we shall here declare that wheresoever this most Genuine Platonick Trinity may be found to differ not only from the Scripture it self which yet notwithstanding is the sole Rule of Faith but also from the Form of the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Councils and further from the Doctrine of Athanasius too in his Genuine writings whether it be in their Inequality or in any thing else is there utterly disclaimed and rejected by us For as for that Creed commonly called Athanasian which was written a long time after by some other hand since at first it derived all its authority either from the Name of Athanasius to whom it was Entituled or else because it was supposed to be an Epitome and Abridgement of his Doctrine this as we conceive is therefore to be interpreted according to the Tenour of that Doctrine contained in the Genuine Writings of Athanasius Of whom we can think no otherwise than as a person highly Instrumental and Serviceable to Divine Providence for the preserving of the Christian Church from lapsing by Arianism into a kind of Paganick and Idolatrous Christianity in Religiously Worshipping of those which themselves concluded to be Creatures and by means of whom especially the Doctrine of the Trinity which before fluctuated in some loose Uncertainty came to be more punctually Stated and Settled Now the Reason why we introduced the Platonick Christian here thus Apologizing was First because we conceived it not to be the Interest of Christianity that the ancient Platonick Trinity should be made more discrepant from the Christian than indeed it is And Secondly because as we have already proved the Ancient and Genuine Platonick
School thither who because there is but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Self-Originated Being would unskilfully conclude that the Word or Son of God must therefore needs be a Creature Thus in his Book concerning the Decrees of the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Arians borrowing the word Agennetos from the Pagans who acknowledge only One such make that a pretence to rank the Word or Son of God who is the Creator of all amongst Creatures or things Made Whereas they ought to have learn'd the right signification of that word Agennetos from those very Platonists who gave it them Who though acknowledging their Second Hypostasis of Nous or Intellect to be derived from the first called Tagathon and their Third Hypostasis or Psyche from the Second nevertheless doubt not to affirm them both to be Ageneta or Vncreated knowing well that hereby they detract nothing from the Majesty of the First from whom these Two are derived Wherefore the Arians either ought so to speak as the Platonists do or else to say nothing at all concerning these things which they are ignorant of In which words of Athanasius there is a plain distinction made betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Vnbegotten and Vncreated and the Second Person of the Trinity the Son or Word of God though acknowledged by him not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnbegotten he being Begotten of the Father who is the only Agennetos yet is he here said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncreated he declaring the Platonists thus to have affirmed the Second and Third Hypostases of their Trinity not to be Creatures but Vncreated Which Signal Testimony of Athanasius concerning the Platonick Trinity is a great Vindication of the same We might here further add St. Austin's Confession also that God the Father and God the Son were by the Platonists acknowledged in like manner as by the Christians though concerning the Holy Ghost he observes some difference betwixt Plotinus and Porphyrius in that the Former did Postponere Animae Naturam Paterno Intellectui the Latter Interponere Plotinus did Postpone his Psyche or Soul after the Paternal Intellect but Porphyrius Interponed it betwixt the Father and the Son as a Middle between both It was before observed that St. Cyril of Alexandria affirmeth nothing to be wanting to the Platonick Trinity but only that Homoousiotes of his and some other Fathers in that Age that they should not only all be God or Vncreated but also Three Coequal Individuals under the same Ultimate Species as Three Individual Men he conceiving that Gradual Subordination that is in the Platonick Trinity to be a certain tang of Arianism Nevertheless he thus concludeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Plato notwithstanding was not altogether ignorant of the Truth but that he had the knowledge of the Only begotten Son of God as likewise of the Holy Ghost called by him Psyche and that he would have every way expressed himself rightly had he not been afraid of Anitus and Melitus and that Poyson which Socrates drunk Now whether this were a Fault or no in the Platonists that they did not suppose their Hypostases to be Three Individuals under the same Ultimate Species we leave to others to judge We might here add the Testimony of Chalcidius because he is unquestionably concluded to have been a Christian though his Language indeed be too much Paganical when he calls the Three Divine Hypostases a Chief a Second and a Third God Istius rei dispositio talis mente concipienda est Originem quidem rerum esse Summum Ineffabilem Deum post Providentiam ejus Secundum Deum Latorem Legis utriusque Vitae tam Aeternae quam Temporariae Tertium esse porro Substantiam que Secunda Mens Intellectusque dicitur quasi quaedam Custos Legis Aeternae His Subjectas esse Rationabiles Animas Legi Obsequentes Ministras verò Potestates c. Ergo Summus Deus jubet Secundus ordinat Tertius intimat Animae verò Legem agâ—nt This thing is to be conceived after this manner That the First Original of Things is the Supreme and Ineffable God after his Providence a Second God the Establisher of the Law of Life both Eternal and Temporary And the Third which is also a Substance and called a Second Mind or Intellect is a certain Keeper of this Eternal Law Vnder these Three are Rational Souls Subject to that Law together with the Ministerial Powers c. So that the Sovereign or Supreme God Commands the Second Orders and the Third executes But Souls are Subject to the Law Where Chalcidius though seeming indeed rather more a Platonist than a Christian yet acknowledgeth no such Beings as Henades and Noes but only Three Divine Hypostases and under them Rational Souls But we shall conclude with the Testimony of Theodoret in his Book De Principio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plotinus and Numenius explaining Plato 's Sence declare him to have asserted Three Super-Temporals or Eternals Good Mind or Intellect and the Soul of the Vniverse he calling that Tagathon which to us is Father that Mind or Intellect which to us is Son or Word and that Psyche or a Power Animating and Enlivening all things which our Scriptures call the Holy Ghost And these things saith he were by Plato purloined from the Philosophy and Theology of the Hebrews Wherefore we cannot but take notice here of a Wonderful Providence of Almighty God that this Doctrine of a Trinity of Divine Hypostases should find such Admittance and Entertainment in the Pagan World and be received by the wisest of all their Philosophers before the times of Christianity thereby to prepare a more easie way for the Reception of Christianity amongst the Learned Pagans Which that it proved successful accordingly is undeniably evident from the Monuments of Antiquity And the Juniour Platonists who were most opposite and adverse to Christianity became at length so sensible hereof that besides their other Adulterations of the Trinity before mentioned for the countenancing of their Polytheism and Idolatry they did in all probability for this very reason quite innovate change and pervert the whole Cabala and no longer acknowledge a Trinity but either a Quaternity or a Quinary or more of Divine Hypostases They first of all contending that before the Trinity there was another Supreme and Highest Hypostasis not to be reckoned with the others but standing alone by himself And we conceive the first Innovator in this kind to have been Jamblichus who in his Egyptian Mysteries where he seems to make the Egyptian Theology to agree with his own Hypotheses writeth in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before those things which truly are and the Principles of all there is One God Superiour to the First God and King Immovable and always remaining in the Solitude of his own Vnity there being nothing Intelligible nor any thing else mingled with him but he being the
Gregory Nazianzen Epiphanius Chrysostom Hilary Ambrose Austine Faustinus and Cyril of Alexandria all of them charging the Arians as guilty of the very same Idolatry with the Gentiles or Pagans in giving Religious Worship even to the Word and Son of God himself and consequently to our Saviour Christ as he was supposed them to be but a Creature But we shall content our selves here only to cite one remarkable passage out of Athanasius in his Fourth Oration against the Arians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why therefore do not these Arians holding this reckon themselves amongst the Pagans or Gentiles sence they do in like manner worship the Creature besides the Creator For though the Pagans worship one Vncreated and many Created Gods but these Arians only one Vncreated and one Created to wit the Son or Word of God yet will not this make any real difference betwixt them because the Arians One Created is one of those many Pagan Gods and those many Gods of the Pagans or Gentiles have the same nature with this One they being alike Creatures Wherefore these wretched Arians are Apostates from the truth of Christianity they betraying Christ more than the Jews did and wallowing or tumbling in the Filth of Pagan Idolatry worshipping Creatures and different kinds of Gods Where by the way we may take notice that when Athanasius affirmeth of the Arians what St Paul doth of the Pagans that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his meaning could not well be that they worshipped the Creature More than the Creator forasmuch as the Arians constantly declared that they gave less worship to Christ the Son or Word of God he being by them accounted but a Creature than they did to the Father the Creator but either that they worshipped the Creature Besides the Creator or the Creature Instead of the Creator or in the Room of him who was alone of right to be Religiously Worshipped Again when the same Athanasius declareth that the Greeks Gentiles or Pagans did Universally worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only One Vncreated he seems to imply that the Platonick Trinity of Hypostases affirmed by him to be all Uncreated were by them look'd upon only as One entire Divinity But the Principal Things which we shall observe from this Passage of Athanasius and those many other places of the Fathers where they Parallel the Arians with the Pagans making the Former guilty of the very same Idolatry with the Latter even then when they worshipped our Saviour Christ himself or the Word and Son of God as he was by them supposed to be nothing but a Creature are these following First That it is here plainly declared by them that the generality of the Pagans did not worship a Multitude of Independent Gods but that only One of their Gods was Vncreated or Self-Existent and all their other Many Gods look'd upon by them as his Creatures This as it is expresly affirmed by Athanasius here that the Greeks or Pagans did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worship only One Vncreated and Many Created Gods so is it plainly implied by all those other forementioned Fathers who charge the Arians with the Guilt of Pagan Idolatry because had the Pagans worshipped Many Vncreated and Independent Gods it would not therefore follow that the Arians were Idolaters if the Pagans were But that this was indeed the sence of the Fathers both before and after the Nicene Council concerning the Pagan Polytheism and Idolatry that it consisted not in worshiping Many Vncreated and Independent Gods but only One Vncreated and Many Created hath been already otherwise manifested and it might be further confirmed by sundry Testimonies of them as this of Saint Gregory Nazianzen in his 37. Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then would some say is there not One Divinity also amongst the Pagans as they who Philosophize more fully and perfectly amongst them do declare And that full and remarkable One of Irenaeus where he plainly affirmeth of the Gentiles Ita Creaturae potius quam Creatori serviebant his qui non sunt Dii ut Primum Deitatis Locum attribuerent Vni alicui Summo Fabricatori hujus Vniversitatis Deo That they so served the Creature and those who are not Gods rather than the Creator that notwithstanding they attributed the First place of the Deity to One certain Supreme God the Maker of this Vniverse The second thing is that Athanasius and all those other Orthodox Fathers who charged the Arians with Pagan Idolatry did thereby plainly imply Those not to be Vncapable of Idolatry who worship One Soveraign Numen or acknowledge One Supreme Deity the Maker of the whole World since not only the Arians unquestionably did so but also according to these Fathers the very Pagans themselves The Third Thing is that in the Judgement of Athanasius and all the Orthodox Anti-Arian Fathers to give Religious Worship to any Created Being whatsoever though Inferiour to that worship which is given to the Supreme God and therefore according to the Modern Distinction not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is absolutely Idolatry Because it is certain that the Arians gave much an Inferiour worship to Christ the Son or Word of God whom they contended to be a meer Creature Made in Time Mutable and Defectible than they did to that Eternal God who was the Creator of him As those Fathers imply the Pagans themselves to have given much an Inferiour Worship to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Many Gods whom themselves look'd upon as Creatures than they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To that One Vncreated God Now if the Arians who zealously contended for the Vnity of the Godhead were nevertheless by the Fathers condemned as guilty of Idolatry for bestowing but an Inferiour kind of Religious Worship upon Christ the Son or Word of God himself as he was supposed by them to be a Creature then certainly cannot they be excused from that Guilt who bestow Religious Worship upon these other Creatures Angels and Souls of men though Inferiour to what they give to the Supreme Omnipotent God the Creator of all Because the Son or Word of God however conceived by these Arians to be a Creature yet was look'd upon by them as the First the most Glorious and most Excellent of all Creatures and that by which as an Instrument all other Creatures as Angels and Souls were made and therefore if it were Idolatry in them to give an Inferiour kind of Religious Worship to this Son and Word of God himself according to theiâ— Hypothâ—sis then can it not possibly be accounted less to bestow the same upon those other Creatures Made by him as Angels and Men deceased Besides which the Word and Son of God howsoever supposed by these Arians to be a Creature yet was not Really such and is in Scripture unquestionably declared to be a True Object of Religious Worship Worship him all ye Gods so that the Arians
against Theists We have been hiâ—herto prevented of â—hat full and Copious Confutation of them intended by us by reason of that large Account given of the Pâ—gan Polythâ—ism which yet was no Impertinent Digression neither it removing the Grand Objâ—ction against the Naturality of the Idea of God as including Onelinâ—ss in it as also preparing a way for that Defence of Christianity designed by us against Atheists Wherefore that we may not here be quite excluded of what was principally intended we shall subjoyn a Contracted and Compendious Confutation of all the Premised Atheistick Principles The FIRST whereof was this That either men have no Idea of God at all or else none but such as is Compounded and Made up of Impossible and Contradictious Notions from whence these Atheists would inferr Him to be an Vnconceivable Nothing In Answer whereunto there hath been something done already it being declared in the Beginning of the Fourth Chapter what the Idea of God is viz. A Perfect Vnderstanding Nature Necessarily Self-Existent and the Cause of all other things And as there is Nothing either Vnconceivable or Contradictious in this Idea so have we shewed that these Confounded Atheists do not only at the same time when they verbally deny an Idea of God implicitly acknowledge and confess it for as much as otherwise denying his Existence they should deny the Existence of Nothing but also that they agree with Theists in this very Idea it being the only thing which Atheists Contend for That the First Originl and Head of all things is no Perfect Vnderstanding Nature but that all sprung from Tohu and Bohu or Dark and Senslâ—ss Matter Fortuitoâ—sly moved Moreover we have not only thus declared the Idea of God but also largely proved and made it clearly evident that the Generality of Mankind in all Ages have had a Prolepsis or Anticipation in their Minds concerning the Real and Actual Existence of such a Being the Pagans themselves besides their other Many Gods which were Vnderstanding Beings Superiour to men acknowledging One Chief and Sovereign Numen the Maker of them all and of the Whole World From whence it plainly appears that those few Atheists that formerly have been and still are here and there up and down in the World are no other than the Monsters and Anomalies of Humane Kind And this alone might be sufficient to repel the First Atheistick Assault made against the Idea of God Nevertheless that we may not seem to dissemble any of the Atheists Strength we shall here Particularly declare all their most Colourable Pretences against the Idea of God and then show the Folly and Invalidity of them Which Pretences are as follow First That we have no Idea nor Thought of any thing not Subject to Corporeal Sense nor the least Evidence of the Existence of any thing but from the same Secondly That Theists themselves acknowledging God to be Incomprehensible he may be from thence inferred to be a Non-Entity Thirdly That the Theists Idea of God including Infinity in it is therefore absolutely Vnconceivable and Impossible Fourthly That Theology is an Arbitrarious Compilement of Inconsistent and Contradictious Notions And Lastly That the Idea and Existence of God ows all its being either to the Confounded Non-Sence of Astonish'd Minds or else to the Fiction and Imposture of Politicians We begin with the First That we can have no Idea Conception or Thought of any thing not Subject to Sense nor the least Evidence of the Existence of any thing but from the same Thus a Modern Atheistick Writer Whatsoever we can conceive hath been Perceived first by Sense either at once or in parts and a man can have no Thought representing any thing not Subject to Sense From whence it fâ—llows that whatsoever is not Sensible and Imaginable is utterly unconceivable and to us Nothing Moreover the same Writer adds That the only Evidence which we have of the Existence of any thing is from Sense the Consequence whereof is this That there being no Corporeal Sense of a Deity there can be no Evidence at all of his Existence Wherefore according to the Tenour of the Atheistick Philosophy all is Resolved into Sense as the only Criterion of Truth accordingly as Protagoras in Plato's Theaetetus concludes Knowledge to be Sense and a late Writer of our own determins Sense to be Original Knowledge Here have we a wide Ocean before us but we must Contract our Sayls Were Sense Knowledge and Vnderstanding then he that sees Light and Colours and feels Heat and Cold would understand Light and Colours Heat and Cold and the like of all other Sensible Things neither would there be any Philosophy at all concerning them Whereas the Mind of man remaineth altogether unsatisfied concerning the Nature of these Corporeal Things even after the Strongest Sensations of them and is but thereby awakened to a further Philosophick Enquiry and Search about them what this Light and Colours this Heat and Cold c. Really should be and whether they be indeed Qualities in the Objects without us or only Phantasms and Sensations in our selves Now it is certain that there could be no Suspicion of any such thing as this were Sense the Highest Faculty in us neither can Sense it self ever decide this Controversie since once Sense cannot judge of another or correct the Error of it all Sense as such that is as Phancy and Apparition being alike True And had not these Atheists been Notorious Dunces in that Atomick Philosophy which they so much pretend to they would clearly have learn'd from thence That Sense is not Knowledge and Vnderstanding nor the Criterion of Truth as to Sensible things themselves it reaching not to the Essence or Absolute Nature of them but only taking notice of their Outside and perceiving its own Passions from them rather than the Things themselves and That there is a Higher Faculty in the Soul of Reason and Vnderstanding which judges of Sense detects the Phantastry and Imposture of it discovers to us that there is nothing in the Objects themselves like to those forementioned Sensible Ideas and resolves all Sensible Things into Intelligible Principles the Ideas whereof are not Foraign and Adventitious and meer Passive Impressions upon the Soul from without but Native and Domestick to it or Actively Exerted from the Soul it self no Passion being able to make a Judgment either of it self or other things This is a thing so Evident that Democritus himself could not but take notice of it and acknowledge it though he made not a right use thereof he in all Probability continuing notwithstanding a Confounded and Besotted Atheist Sextus Empiricus having recorded this of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Democritus in his Canons affirmeth that there are Two kinds of Knowledges One by the Senses and another by the Mind Of which that by the Mind is only accounted Knowledge he bearing witness to the Faithfulness and Firmness thereof for the judgment of Truth The other by the Senses he calleth
Dark denying it to be a Rule and Measure of Truth His own words are these There are Two Species of Knowledge the One Genuine the other Dark or Obscure The Dark and Obscure Knowledge is Seeing Hearing Smelling Tasting Touching But the Genuine Knowledge is another more Hidden and Recondit To which purpose there is another Fragment also of this Democritus preserved by the same Sextus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bitter and Sweet Hot and Cold are only in Opinion or Phancy Colour is only in opinion Atoms and Vacuum alone in Truth and Reality That which is thought to be are Sensibles but these are not according to Truth but Atoms and Vacuum only Now the chief Ground of this Rational Discovery of the ancient Atomists that Sensible things as Heat and Cold Bitter and Sweet Red and Green are no Real Qualities in the Objects without but only our own Phancies was because in Body there are no such things Intelligible but only Magnitude Figure Site Motion and Rest. Of which we have not only Sensible Ideas Passively impressed upon us from without but also Intelligible Notions Actively Exerted from the Mind it self Which Latter notwithstanding because they are not unaccompanied with Sensible Phantasms are by many unskilfully confounded with them But besides these we have other Intelligible Notions or Ideas also which have no Genuine Phantasms at all belonging to them Of which whosoever doubts may easily be satisfied and convinced by reading but a Sentence or two that he understands in any Book almost that shall come next to his hand and reflexively examining himself whether he have a Phantasm or Sensible Idea belonging to every Word or no. For whoever is modest and ingenuous will quickly be forced to confess that he meets with many Words which though they have a Sence or Intelligible Notion yet have no Genuine Phantasm belonging to them And we have known some who were confidently engaged in the other Opininon being put to read the beginning of Tully's Offices presently non-plust and confounded in that first word Quanquam they being neither able to deny but that there was a Sence belonging to it nor yet to affirm that they had any Phantasm thereof save only of the Sound or Letters But to prove that there are Cogitations not subject to Corporeal Sense we need go no further than this very Idea or Description of God A Substance Absolutely Perfect Infinitely Good Wise and Powerful Necessarily Self-existent and the Cause of all other things Where there is not One Word unintelligible to him that hath any Uunderstanding in him and yet no Considerative and Ingenuous Person can pretend that he hath a Genuine Phantasm or Sensible Idea answering to any one of those words either to Substance or to Absolutely Perfect or to Infinitely or to Good or to Wise or to Powerful or to Necessity or to Self-existence or to Cause or indeed to All or Other or Things Wherefore it is nothing but want of Meditation together with a Fond and Sottish Dotage upon Corporeal Sense which hath so far imposed upon some as to make them believe that they have not the least Cogitation of any thing not subject to Corporeal Sense or that there is nothing in Humane Vnderstanding or Conception which was not First in Bodily Sense a Doctrine highly favourable to Atheism But since it is certain on the contrary that we have many Thoughts not Subject to Sense it is manifes◠that whatsoever falls not under External Sense is not therefore Vnconceivable and Nothing Which whosoever asserts must needs affirm Life and Cogitation it self Knowledge or Vnderstanding Reason and Memory Volition and Appetite things of the greatest Moment and Reality to be Nothing but mere Words without any Significaetion Nay Phancy and Sense it self upon this Hypothesis could hardly scape from becoming Non-Entities too forasmuch as neither Phancy nor Sense falls under Sense but only the Objects of them we neither seeing Vision nor feeling Taction nor hearing Audition much less hearing Sight or seeing Tast or the like Wherefore though God should be never so much Corporeal as some Theists have conceived him to be yet since the Chief of his Essence and as it were his Inside must by these be acknowledged to consist in Mind Wisdom and Vnderstanding he could not possibly as to this fall under Corporeal Sense Sight or Touch any more than Thought can But that there is Substance Incorporeal also and therefore in it self altogether Insensible and that the Deity is such is demonstrated elsewhere We grant indeed that the Evidence of Particular Bodies existing Hîc Nunc without us doth necessarily depend upon the Information of Sense but yet nevertheless the Certainty of this very Evidence is not from Sense alone but from a Complication of Reason and Vnderstanding together with it Where Sense the only Evidence of things there could be no Absolute Truth and Falshood nor Certainty at all of any thing Sense as such being only Relative to Particular Persons Seeming and Phantastical and obnoxious to much Delusion For if our Nerves and Brain be inwardly so moved and affected as they would be by such an Object present when indeed it is absent and no other Motion or Sensation in the mean time prevail against it and obliterate it then must that Object of necessity seem to us present Moreover those Imaginations that spring and bubble from the Soul it self are commonly taken for Sensations by us when asleep and sometimes in Melancholick and Phanciful Persons also when awake That Atheistick Principle that there is no Evidence at all of any thing as Existing but only from Corporeal Sense is plainly contradicted by the Atomick Atheists themselves When they assert Atoms and Vacuum to be the Principles of all things and the Exuvious Images of Bodies to be the Causes both of Sight and Cogitation for Single Atoms and those Exuvious Images were never Seen nor Felt and Vacuum or Empty Space is so far from being Sensible that these Atheists themselves allow it to be the One Only Incorporeal Wherefore they must here go beyond the Ken of Sense and appeal to Reason only for the Existence of these Principles as Protagoras one of them in Plato professedly doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Have a Care that none of the Prophane and Vninitiated in the Mysteries over-hear you By the Prophane I mean saith he those who think nothing to Exist but what they can feel with their Fingers and exclude all that is Invisible out of the Rank of Being Were Existence to be allowed to nothing that doth not fall under Corporeal Sense then must we deny the Existence of Soul and Mind in our selves and others because we can neither Feel nor See any such thing Whereas we are certain of the Existence of our own Souls partly from an inward Consciousness of our own Cogitations and partly from that Principle of Reason That Nothing can not Act. And the Existence of other Individual Souls is manifest to us
Actual Infinity and more than an Infinity of Number but also because upon this Supposition there would always have been an Infinity of Time Past and consequently an Infinity of Time Past which was never Present Whereas all the Moments of Past Time must needs have been once Present and if so then all of them at least save One Future too from whence it will follow that there was a First Moment or Beginning of Time And thus does Reason conclude neither the World nor Time it self to have been Infinite in their Past Duration or Eternal without Beginning Here will the Atheist think presently he hath got a great advantage to disprove the Existence of a God Nonne qui Aeternitatem Mundi sic tollunt eâdem operâ etiam Mundi Conditori Aeternitatem tollunt Do not they who thus destroy the Eternity of the World at the same time destroy also the Eternity of the Creator For if Time it self were not Eternal then how could the Deity or any thing be so The Atheist securely taking it for granted that God himself could not be otherwise Eternal than by a Successive Flux of Infinite Time But we say that this will on the contrary afford us a plain Demonstration of the Existence of a Deity For since the World and Time it self were not Infinite in their Past-Duration but had a Beginning therefore were they both certainly made together by some other Being who is in order of Nature Senior to Time and so without Time before Time he being above that Successive Flux and compehending in the Stability and Immutable Perfection of his own Being his Yesterday and To day and For ever Or thus Something was of necessity Infinite in Duration and without Beginning But neither the World nor Motion nor Time that is no Successive Being was such therefore is there something else whose Being and Duration is not Successive and Flowing but Permanent to whom this Infinity belongeth The Atheists here can only smile or make faces and show their little wit in quibbling upon Nunc-stans or a Standing Now of Eternity as if that Standing Eternity of the Deity which with so much Reason hath been contended for by the Ancient Genuine Theists were nothing but a Pitiful Small Moment of Time Standing still and as if the Duration of all Beings whatsoever must needs be like our own Whereas the Duration of every thing must of necessity be agreeable to its Nature and therefore As that whose Imperfect Nature is ever Flowing like a River and consists in Continual Motion and Changes one after another must needs have accordingly a Successive and Flowing Duration sliding perpetually from Present into Past and always posting on towards the Future expecting Something of it self which is not yet in being but to come So must that whose Perfect Nature is Essentially Immutable and always the Same and Necessarily Existent have a Permanent Duration never losing any thing of it self once Present as sliding away from it nor yet running forwards to meet something of it self before which is not yet in being and it is as Contradictious for it ever to have begun as ever to Cease to be Now whereas the Modern Atheists pretend to have proved that there is Nothing Infinite neither in Duration nor otherwise and consequently No Deity meerly because we have no Sense nor Phantasm of Infinite nor can Fully Comprehend the same and therefore will needs conclude that the Words Infinite and Eternal signifie nothing in the thing it self but either mens own Ignorance and Inability to conceive When or Whether that which is called Eternal began together with the Confounded Non-sence of their Astonish'd Minds and their Stupid Veneration of that which their own Fear and Phancy has raised up as a Bugbear to themselves or else the Progress of their Thoughts further and further backward Indefinitely though they plainly confute themselves in all this by sometimes acknowledging Matter and Motion Infinite and Eternal which argues either their Extreme Sottishness or Impudence We have shewed with Mathematical Evidence and Certainty that there is really something Infinite in Duration or Eternal by which therefore cannot be meant Mens own Ignorance or the Confounded Non-sence of their Devotion nor yet the Idle Progress of their Minds further and further Indefinitely which never reaches Infinite but a Reality in the thing it self namely this that it Never was Not nor had any Beginning Moreover having Demonstrated concerning this Infinity and Eternity without Beginning that it cannot possibly belong to any Successive Being we confidently conclude against these Atheists also that it was not Matter and Motion or this Mundane System but a Perfect Immutable Nature of a Permanent Duration that is a God to whom it belonged To summ up all therefore we say that Infinite and Eternal are not Words that signifie nothing in the thing it self nor meer Attributes of Honour Complement and Flattery that is of Devout and Religious Non-sence Error and Falshood but Attributes belonging to the Deity and to that alone of the most Philosophick Truth and Reality And though we being Finite have no Full Comprehension and Adequate Vnderstanding of this Infinity and Eternity as not of the Deity yet can we not be without some Notion Conception and Apprehension thereof so long as we can thus demonstrate concerning it that it belongs to something and yet to nothing neither but a Perfect Immutable Nature But the Notion of this Infinite Eternity will be yet further cleared in the following Explanation and Vindication of Infinite Power For the Atheists principally quarrel with Infinite Power or Omnipotence and pretend in like manner this to be Vtterly Vnconceivable and Impossible and Subjected in Nothing Thus a Modern Atheistick Writer concludes that since No man can conceive Infinite Power this is also but an Attribute of Honour which the Confounded Non-sence of Astonish'd Minds bestows upon the Object of their Devotion without any Philosophick Truth and Reality And here have our Modern Atheists indeed the Suffrage and Agreement of the ancient Philosophick Atheists also with them who as appears from the Verses before cited out of Lucretius concern'd themselves in nothing more than asserting All Power to be Finite and Omnipotence or Infinite Power to belong to Nothing First therefore it is here observable that this Omnipotence or Infinite Power asserted by Theists has been commonly either ignorantly mistaken or wilfully misrepresented by these Atheists out of design to make it seem Impossible and Ridiculous as if by it were meant a Power of Producing and Doing any thing whatsoever without Exception though never so Contradictious As a late Atheistick Person seeming to assert this Divine Omnipotence and Infinite Power really and designedly notwithstanding abused the same with this Scoptick Irony That God by his Omnipotence or Infinite Power could turn this Tree into a Syllogism Children indeed have sometimes such childish apprehensions of the Divine Omnipotence and Ren. Cartesius though otherwise an Acute Philosopher was here no
Imperfect is accounted such by the Diminution of that which is Perfect From whence it comes to pass that if in any kind any thing appear Imperfect there must of Necessity be something also in that Kind Perfect For Perfection being once taken away it could not be imagined from whence that which is accounted Imperfect should have proceeded Nor did the Nature of things take beginning from Inconsummate and Imperfect things but proceedings from things Absolute and Complete thence descend down to these lower Effete and Languid things But of this more elsewhere Wherefore since Infinite is the same with Absolutely Perfect we having a Notion or Idea of the Latter must needs have of the Former From whence we learn also that though the word Infinite be in the form thereof Negative yet is the Sence of it in those things which are really capable of the same Positive it being all one with Absolutely Perfect as likewise the Sence of the word Finite is Negative it being the same with Imperfect So that Finite is properly the Negation of Infinite as that which in order of Nature is before it and not Infinite the Negation of Finite However in those things which are capable of no true Infinity because they are Essentially Finite as Number Corporeal Magnitude and Time Infinity being there a meer Imaginary thing and a Non-Entity it can only be conceived by the Negation of Finite as we also conceive Nothing by the Negation of Something that is we can have no Positive Conception at all thereof We conclude To assert an Infinite Being is nothing else but to assert a Being Absolutely Perfect such as Never was Not or had no Beginning which could produce all things Possible and Conceivable and upon which all other things must depend And this is to assert a God One Absolutely Perfect Being the Original of all things God and Infinite and Absolutely Perfect being but different Names for One and the same thing We come now to the Fourth Atheistick Objection That Theology is nothing but an Arbitrarious Compilement of Inconsistent and Contradictious Notions Where First we deny not but that as some Theologers or Bigotical Religionists or later times extend the Divine Omnipotence to things Contradictious and Impossible as to the Making of One and the same Body to be all of it in several distant places at once so may others sometimes unskilfully attribute to the Deity things Inconsistent or Contradictious to one another because seeming to them to be all Perfections As for example though it be concluded generally by Theologers that there is a Natural Justice and Sanctity in the Deity yet do some notwithstanding contend That the Will of God is not determined by any Antecedent Rule or Nature of Justice but that whatsoever he could be supposed to Will Arbitrarily would therefore be Ipso facto Just which is called by them the Divine Soveraignty and look'd upon as a Great Perfection Though it be certain that these Two Things are directly Contradictious to one another viz. That there is something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its own Nature Just and Vnjust or a Natural Sanctity in God and That the Arbitrary Will and Command of the Deity is the only Rule of Justice and Injustice Again some Theologers determining That Whatsoever is in God is God or Essential to the Deity they conceiving such an Immutability to be a Necessary Perfection thereof seem thereby not only to Contradict all Liberty of Will in the Deity which themselves notwithstanding contend for in a high degree that all things are Arbitrarily determined by Divine Decree but also to take away from it all Power of Acting ad Extra and of Perceiving or Animadverting things done sucessively here in the World But it will not follow from these and the like Contradictions of mistaken Theologers that therefore Theology it self is Contradictious and hath nothing of Philosophick Truth at all in it no more than because Philosophers also hold Contradictory Opinions that therefore Philosophy it self is Contradictious and that there is Nothing Absolutely True or False but according to the Protagorean Doctrine all Seeming and Phantastical But in the next place we add that though it be true that the Nature of things admits of nothing Contradictious and that whatsoever plainly Implies a Contradiction must therefore of necessity be a Non-Entity yet is this Rule notwithstading obnoxious to be much abused when whatsoever mens Shallow and Gross Understandings cannot Reach to they will therefore presently conclude to be Contradictious and Impossible As for example the Atheists and Materialists cannot Conceive of any other Substance besides Body and therefore do they determine presently that Incorporeal Substance is a Contradiction in the very Terms it being as much as to say Incorporeal Body wherefore when God is said by Theologers to be an Incorporeal Substance this is to them an Absolute Impossibility Thus a Modern Writer The Vniverse that is the whole Mass of all things is Corporeal that is to say Body Now every Part of Body is Body and Consequently every Part of the Vniverse is Body and that which is not Body is no part thereof And because the Vniverse is All that which is no part of it is nothing Therefore when Spirits are called Incorporeal this is only a name of Honour and it may with more Piety be attributed to God himself in whom we consider not what Attribute best expresseth his Nature which is Incomprehensible But what best expresseth our Desire to Honour him Where Incorporeal is said to be an Attribute of Honour that is such an Attribute as expresseth only the Veneration of mens Minds but signifieth nothing in Nature nor hath any Philosophick Truth and Reality under it a Substance Incorporeal being as Contradictious as Something and Nothing Notwithstanding which this Contradiction is only in the Weakness and Childishness of these mens Understandings and not the thing it self it being Demonstrable that there is some other Substance besides Body according to the True and Genuine Notion of it But because this mistake is not proper to Atheists only there being some Theists also who labour under this same Infirmity of Mind not to be able to Conceive any other Substance besides Body and who therefore assert a Corporeal Deity we shall in the next place show from a passage of a Modern Writer what kind of Contradictions they are which these Atheists impute to all Theology namely such as these that it supposes God to Perceive things Sensible without any Organs of Sense and to Vnderstand and be Wise without any Brains Pious men saith he attribute to God Almighty for Honours sake whatsoever they see Honourable in the world as Seeing Hearing Willing Knowing Justice Wisdom c. But they deny him such poor things as Eyes Ears and Brains and other Organs without which we Worms neither have nor can conceive such Faculties to Be and so far they do well But when they dispute of God's Actions Philosophically then do they
the Gods are not by Nature but by Art and Laws onely and that from thence it comes to pass that they are different to different Nations and Countreys accordingly as the several humours of their Law-makers did chance to determine And before Plato Critias one of the Thirty Tyrants of Athens plainly declared Religion at first to have been a Political Intrigue in those Verses of his recorded by Sextus the Philosopher beginning to this purpose That there was a time at first when mens life was Disorderly and Brutish and the Will of the Stronger was the only Law After which they consented and agreed together to make Civil Laws that so the disorderly might be punished Notwithstanding which it was still found that men were only hindred from open but not from secret Injustices Whereupon some Sagacious and Witty person was the Author of a further Invention to deterr men as well from secret as from open Injuries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Namely by introducing or feigning a God Immortal and Incorruptible who hears and sees and takes notice of all things Critias then concluding his Poem in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in this manner do I conceive some One at first to have perswaded mortals to believe that there is a kind of Gods Thus have we fully declared the sence of the Atheists in their Account of the Phenomenon of Religion and the Belief of a God namely that they derive it principally from these Three Springs or Originals First from mens own Fear and Solicitude concerning Future Events or their Good and Evil Fortune Secondly from their Ignorance of the Causes both of those Events and the Phaenomena of Nature together with their Curiosity And Lastly from the Fiction of Civil Soveraigns Law-makers and Politicians The Weakness and Foolery of all which we shall now briefly manifest First therefore it is certain that such an Excess of Fear as makes any one constantly and obstinately to believe the Existence of That which there is no manner of ground neither from Sense not Reason for tending also to the great Disquiet of mens own Lives and the Terrour of their Minds cannot be accounted other than a kind of Crazedness or Distraction Wherefore the Atheists themselves acknowledging the Generality of mankind to be possessed with such a Belief of a Deity when they resolve this into such an Excess of Fear it is all one as if they should affirm the Generality of mankind to be Frighted out of their Wits or Crazed and Distemper'd in their Brains none but a few Atheists who being undaunted and undismaied have escaped this Panick Terrour remaining Sober and in their Right Senses But whereas the Atheists thus impute to the Generality of mankind not only Light-Minded Credulity and Phantastry but also such an Excess of Fear as differs nothing at all from Crazedness and Distraction or Madness We affirm on the contrary that their supposed Courage Stayedness and Sobriety is really nothing else but the Dull and Sottish Stupidity of their minds Dead and Heavy Incredulity and Earthly Diffidence or Distrust by reason whereof they will believe nothing but what they can Feel or See Theists indeed have a Religious Fear of God which is Consequent from him or their Belief of him of which more afterwards but the Deity it self or the Belief thereof was not Created by any Antecedent Fear that is by Fear concerning Mens Good and Evil Fortune it being certain that none are less Solicitous concerning such Events that they who are most truly Religious The Reason whereof is because these place their Chief Good in nothing that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aliene or in Anothers Power and Exposed to the strokes of Fortune but in that which is most truly their Own namely the Right use of their own Will As the Atheists on the contrary must needs for this very reason be liable to great Fears and Solicitudes concerning Outward Events because they place their Good and Evil in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Passion of Pleasure and Pain or at least denying Natural Honesty they acknowledge no other Good but what belongs to the Animal Life only and so is under the Empire of Fortune And that the Atheists are indeed generally Timorous and Fearful Suspicious and Distrustful things seems to appear plainly from their building all their Politicks Civil Societies and Justice improperly so called upon that only Foundation of Feâ—r and Distrust But the Grand Errour of the Atheists here is this that they suppose the Deity according to the sence of the Generality of mankind to be nothing but a Mormo Bug-bear or Terriculum an Affrightful Hurtful and most Vndesirable thing Whereas men every where invoke the Deity in their Straits and Difficulties for aid and assistance looking upon it as Exorable and Plaeable and by their Trust and Confidence in it acknowledge its Goodness and Benignity Synesius affirms that though men were otherwise much divided in their opinions yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They all every where both Wise and Vnwise agree in this that God is to be praised as one who is Good and Benign If amongst the Pagans there were any who understood that Proverbial Speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the worst sence as if God Almighty were of an Envious and Spiteful Nature these were certainly but a few Ill-natur'd men who therefore drew a Picture of the Deity according to their own Likeness For the Proverb in that sence was disclaimed and cried down by all the wiser Pagans as Aristotle who affirmed the Poets to have lyed in this as well as they did in many other things and Plutarch who taxeth Herodotus for insinuating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Deity universally that is All the Gods to be of an Envious and Vexatious or Spiteful disposition whereas Himself appropriated this only to that Evil Demon or Principle asserted by him as appeareth from the Life of P. Aemilius written by him where he affirmeth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Deity Vniversally was of an Envious Nature but That there is a Certain Deity or Daemon whose proper task it is to bring down all great and over-swelling humane Prosperity and so to temper every mans Life that none may be happy in this world sincerely and unmixedly without a check of Adversity which is as if a Christian should ascribe it to the Devil And Plato plainly declares the reason of God's making the World at first to have been no other than this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he was Good and there is no manner of Envy in that which is Good From whence he also concluded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God therefore willed all things should be made the most like himself that is after the best manner But the true meaning of that Ill-languaged Proverb seems at first to have been
there is Nulla Naturalis Charitas No Natural Charity but that Omnis Benevolentia oritur ex Imbecillitate Metu All Benevolence ariseth onely from Imbecillity and Fear that is from being either obnoxious to anothers Power or standing in need of his Help So that all that is now called Love and Friendship amongst Men is according to these really nothing but either a crouching under Anothers Power whom they cannot Resist or else Mercatura quaedam Vtilitatum a certain kind of Merchandizing for Vtilities And thus does Cotta in Cicero declare their sence Ne Homines quidem censetis nisi Imbecilli essent futuros Beneficos aut Benignos You conceive that no man would be any way Beneficent or Benevolent to another were it not for his Imbecillity or Indigence But as for God Almighty these Atheists conclude That upon the supposition of his Existence there could not be so much as this Spurious Love or Benevolence in him neither towards any thing because by reason of his Absolute and Irresistible Power He would neither stand in Need of Any thing and be devoid of all Fear Thus the forementioned Cotta Quid est Praestantius Bonitate Beneficentiâ Quâ cum carere Deum vultis neminem Deo nec Deum nec Hominem Carum neminem ab eo amari vultis Ita fit ut non modo Homines à Diis sed ipsi Dii inter se ab aliis alii negligantur What is there more excellent than Goodness and Beneficence which when you will needs have God to be utterly devoid of you suppose that neither any God nor Man is Dear to the Supreme God or beloved of him From whence it will follow that not only men are neglected by the Gods but also the Gods amongst themselves are neglected by one another Accordingly a late Pretender to Politicks who in this manner discards all Natural Justice and Charity determines concerning God Regnandi Puniendi eos qui Leges suas violant Jus Deo esse à Solâ Potentiâ Irresistibli That he has no other Right of Reigning over men and of Punishing those who transgress his Laws but only from his Irresistible Power Which indeed is all one as to say That God has no Right at all of Ruling over mankind and imposing Commands upon them but what he doth in this kind he doth it only by Force and Power Right and Might or Power being very different things from one another and there being no Jus or Right without Natural Justice so that the word Right is here only Abused And Consentaneously hereunto the same Writer further adds Si Jus Regnandi habeat Deus ab Omnipotentia sua manifestum est Obligationem ad praestandum ipsi Obedientiam incumbere Hominibus propter Imbicillitatem That if God's Right of Commanding be derived only from his Omnipotence then is it manifest that mens Obligation to obey him lies upon them only from their Imbecillity Or as it is further explained by him Homines ideò Deo subjectos esse quia Omnipotentes non sunt aut quia ad Resistendum satis Virium non habent That men are therefore only Subject to God because they are not Omnipotent or have not sufficient Power to Resist him Thus do we see plainly how the Atheists by reason of their Vice and and Ill Nature which makes them deny all Natural Justice and Honesty all Natural Charity and Benevolence transform the Deity into a monstrous shape such an Omnipotent Being as if he were could have nothing neither of Justice in him nor of Benâ—volence towards his Creatures and whose only Right and Authority of Commanding them would be his Irresistible Power whom his Creatures could not place any Hope Trust and Confidence in nor have any other Obligation to obey than that of Fear and Necessity proceeding from their Imbecillity or Inability to resist him And such a Deity as this is indeed a Mormo or Bug-bear a most Formidable and Affrightful thing But all this is nothing but the Atheists False Imagination True Religion representing a most comfortable Prospect of things from the Deity whereas on the contrary the Atheistick Scene of things is Dismal Hopeless and Forlorn That there should be no other Good than what depends upon things wholly out of our own power the momentany gratification of our Insatiate Appetites and the perpetual pouring in to a Dolium Pertusum a Perforated and Leaking Vessel That our selves should be but a Congeries of Atoms upon the dissolution of whose Compages our Life should vanish into nothing and all our Hope perish That there should be no Providence over us nor any Kind and Good-natured Being above to take care of us there being nothing without us but Dead and Sensless Matter True indeed there could be no spiteful Designs in Sensless Atoms or a Dark Inconscious Nature Upon which account Plutarch would grant that even this Atheistick Hypothesis it self as bad as it is were notwithstanding to be preferred before that of an Omnipotent Spiteful and Malicious Being if there can be any such Hypothesis as this a Monarchy of the Manichean Evil Principle reigning all alone over the whole world without any Corrival and having an undisturbed Empire Nevertheless it is certain also that there could be no Faith nor Hope neither in these Sensless Atoms both Necessarily and Fortuitously moved no more than there could be Faith and Hope in a Whirlwind or in a Tempestous Sea whose merciless waves are Inexorable and deaf to all Cries and Supplications For which reason Epicurus himself confessed that it was better to give credit to the Fable of the Gods as he calls it than to serve the Atheistick Fate or that Material Necessity of all things introduced by those Atheistick Physiologers Leucippus and Democritus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because there is Hopes that the Gods may be prevailed with by worship and prayer but the other Necessity is altogether deaf and Inexorable And though Epicurus thought to mend the matter and make the Atheistick Hypothesis more tolerable by introducing into it contrary to the Tenour of those Priciples Liberty of Will in Men yet this being not a Power over things Without us but our selves only could alter the case very little Epicurus himself was in a Panick Fear lest the frame of Heaven should sometime upon a sudden crack and tumble about his Ears and this Fortuitous Compilement of Atoms be dissolved into a Chaos Tria talia Texta Vna Dies dabit exitio multosque per annos Sustentata ruet moles Machina mundi And what Comfort could his Liberty of Will then afford Him who placed all his happiness in Security from External Evils 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Plutarch The Atheistick Design in shaking off the Belief of a God was to be without Fear but by means hereof they framed such a System of things to themselves as under which they could not have the least Hope Faith or Confidence Thus running from Fear did
they plunge themselves into Fear for they who are without Hope can never be free from Fear Endless of necessity must the Fears and Anxieties of those men be who shake off that One Fear of God that would only preserve them from Evil and have no Faith nor Hope in him Wherefore we might conclude upon better grounds than the Atheists do of Theism that Atheism which hath no foundation at all in Nature nor in Reason springs first from the Imposture of Fear For the Faith of Religion being the Substance or Confidence of such things not seen as are to be Hoped for Atheistick Insidelity must needs on the contrary be a certain heavy Diffidence Despondence and Misgiving of Mind or a Timorous Distrust and Disbelief of Good to be Hoped for beyond the reach of Sense namely of an Invisible Being Omnipotent that exerciseth a Just Kind and Gracious Povidence over all those who commit their ways to him with an endeavour to please him both here in this Life and after Death But Vice or the Love of Lawless Liberty prevailing over such Disbelieving persons makes them by degrees more and more desirous that there should be no God that is no such Hinderer of their Liberty and to count it a happiness to be freed from the Fear of him whose Justice if he were they must needs be obnoxious to And now have we made it Evident that these Atheists who make Religion and the Belief of a God to proceed from the Imposture of Fear do first of all disguise the Deity and put a Monstrous Horrid and Affrightful Vizard upon it transforming it into such a thing as can only be Feared and Hated and then do they conclude concerning it as well indeed they may that there is no such thing as this really Existing in Nature but that it is only a Mormo or Bugbear raised up by mens Fear and Phansie Of the Two it might better be said that the Opinion of a God sprung from mens Hope of Good than from their Fear of Evil but really it springs neither from Hope nor Fear however in different Circumstances it raises both those Passions in our Minds nor is it the Imposture of any Passion but that whose Belief is supported and Sustained by the strongest and clearest Reason as shall be declared in due place But the Sense of a Deity often Preventing Ratiocination in us and urging it self more Immediately upon us it is certain that there is also besides a Rational Belief thereof a Natural Prolepsis or Anticipation in the Minds of men concerning it which by Aristotle is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Vaticination Thus have we sufficiently confuted the First Atheistick Pretence to salve the Phaenomenon of Religion and the Belief of a God so generally entertained from the Imposture of Fear we come now to the Second That it proceeded from the Ignorance of Causes also or Mens want of Philosophy they being prone by reason of their Innate Curiosity where they find no Causes to make or feign them and from their Fear in the Absence of Natural and Necessary Causes to imagine Super-natural and Divine this also affording them a handsom Cover and Pretext for their Ignorance For which cause these Atheists stick not to affirm of God Almighty what some Philosophers do of Occult Qualities that he is but Persugium Asylum Ignorantiae a Refuge and Shelter for mens Ignorance that is in plain and downright Languâ—ge The meer Sanctuary of Fools And these two things are here commonly joyned together by these Atheists both Fear and Ignorance of Causes as which joyntly concurr in the Production of Theism Because as the Fear of Children raises up Bugbears especially in the Dark so do they suppose in like manner the Fear of men in the Darkness of their Ignorance of Causes especially to raise up the Mormo Spectre or Phantasm of a God which is thus intimated by the Epicurean Poet Omnia Caecis In tenebris Metuunt And accordingly Democritus gave this account of the Original of Theism or Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That when in old times men observed strange and affrightful things in the Meteors and the Heaven as Thunder Lightning Thunderbolts Eclipses they not knowing the Causes thereof being terrified thereby presently imputed them to the Gods And Epicurus declares this to have been the reason why he took such great pains in the study of Physiology that by finding out the Natural and Necessary Causes of things he might be able to free both himself and others from the Terrour of a God which would otherwise Invade and Assault them the Importunity of mens minds when-ever they are at a loss for Natural Causes urging them so much with the Fear Suspicion and Jealousie of a Deity Wherefore the Atheists thus dabling in Physiology and finding out as they conceive Material and Mechanical Causâ—s for some of the Phaenomâ—na of Nature and especially for such of them as the unskilful Vulgar some times impute to God himâ—elf when they can prove Eclipses for example to be no Miracles and render it probable that Thunder is not the Voice of God Almighty himself as it were roaring above in the Heavens meerly to affright and amaze poor Mortals and make them quake and tremble and that Thunderbolts are not there flung by his own hands as the direful messengers of his wrath and displeasure they presently conclude triumphantly thereupon concerning Nature or Matter that it doth Ipsa suâ per se sponte omnia Diis agere expers Do all things alone of it self without a God But we shall here make it appear in a few Instances as briefly as we may that Philosophy and the True Knowledge of Causes leads to God and that Atheism is nothing but Ignorance of Causes and of Philosophy For first no Atheist who derives all from sensless Atoms or Matter is able to assign any Cause at all of Himself or give any true account of the Original of his own Soul or Mind it being utterly Unconceivable and Impossible that Soul and Mind Sense Reason and Vnderstanding should ever arise from Irrational and Sensless Matter however modified or result from Atoms devoid of all manner of Qualities that is from meer Magnitude Figure Site and Motion of Parts For though it be indeed absurd to say as these Atheists alledge that Laughing and Crying Things are made out of Laughing and Crying Principles Et Ridere potest non ex Ridentibu ' factus Yet does it not therefore follow that Sensitive and Rational Beings might result from a Composition of Irrational and Sensless Atoms which according to the Democritick Hypothesis have nothing in them but Magnitude Figure Site and Motion or Rest. Because Laughing and Crying are Motions which result from the Mechanism of Humane Bodies in such a manner Organized but Sense and Vnderstanding are neither Local Motion nor Mechanism And the Case will be the very same both in the Anaximandrian or Hylopathian and in the
Animals the True and Proper Cause of Motion or the Determination thereof at least is not the Matter it self Organized but the Soul either as Cogitative or Plastickly-Self Active Vitally united thereunto and Naturally Ruling over it But in the whole World it is either God himsel◠Originally impressing a certain Quantity of Motion upon the Matter of the Universe and constantly conserving the same according to that of the Sripture In him we Live Move which seems to have been the Sence also of that Noble Agrigentine Poet and Philosopher when he described God to be only A Pure or Holy Mind that with swift thoughts agitates the whole World or else it is Instrumentally an Inferiour Created Spirit Soul or Life of Nature that is a Subordinate Hylarchical Principle which hath a Power of Moving Matter Regularly according to the Direction of a Superiour Perfect Mind And thus do we see again that Ignorance of Causes is the Seed of Atheism and not of Theism no Atheists being able to assign a true Cause of Motion the Knowledge whereof plainly leadeth to a God Furthermore those Atheists who acknowledge no other Principle of things but Sensless Matter Fortuitously moved must needs be Ignorant also of the Cause of that Grand Phaenomenon called by Aristotle the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Well and Fit in Nature that is of the most Artificial Frame of the whole Mundane System in General and of the Bodies of Animals in Particular together with the Conspiring Harmony of all For they who boasted themselves able to give Natural Causes of all things whatsoever without a God can give no other Cause at all of this Phaenomenon but only that the World Happened by Chance to be thus made as it is Now they who make Fortune and Chance to be the only Cause of this so Admirable Phaenomenon the most Regular and Artificial Frame and Harmony of the Vniverse they either make the meer Absence and Want of a Cause to be a Cause Fortune and Chance being nothing else but the Absence or want of an Intending Cause Or else do they make their own Ignorance of a Cause and They know not How to be a Cause as the Author of the Leviathan interprets the meaning hereof Many times saith he men put for Cause of Natural Events their own Ignorance but disguised in other words as when they say that Fortune is the Cause of things Contingent that is of things whereof they know no Cause Or they affirm against all Reason one Contrary to be the Cause of another as Confusion to be the Cause of Order Pulchritude and Harmony Chance and Fortune to be the Cause of Art and Skill Folly and Nonsence the Cause of the most Wise and Regular Contrivance Or Lastly they deny it to have any Cause at all since they deny an Intending Cause and there cannot Possibly be any other Cause of Artificialness and Conspiring Harmony than Mind and Wisdom Councel and Contrivance But because the Atheists here make some Pretences for this their Ignorance we shall not conceal any of them but bring them all to light to the end that we may discover their Weakness and Foolery First therefore they Pretend that the World is not so Artificially and Well made but that it might have been made much Better and that there are many Faults and Flaws to be found therein from whence they would infer that it was not made by a God he being supposed by Theists to be no Bungler but a Perfect Mind or a Being Infinitely Good and Wise who therefore should have made all things for the Best But this being already set down by it self as a Twelfth Atheistick Objection against a Deity we must reserve the Confutation thereof for its proper place Only we shall observe thus much here by the way That those Theists of Later times who either because they Fancy a meer Arbitary Deity or because their Faith in the Divine Goodness is but weak or because they Judge of things according to their own Private Appetites and Selfish Passions and not with a Free Uncaptivated Vniversality of Mind and an Impartial Regard to the Good of the Whole or because they look only upon the Present Scene of things and take not in the Future into consideration nor have a Comprehensive View of the whole Plot of Divine Providence together or lastly because we Mortals do all stand upon too Low a Ground to take a commanding view and Prospect upon the whole Frame of things and our shallow Understandings are not able to fathom the Depths of the Divine Wisdom nor trace all the Methods and Designs of Providence grant That the World might have been made much Better than now it is which indeed is all one as to say that it is Not Well made these Neoterick Christians I say seem hereby to give a much greater advantage to the Atheists than the Pagan Theists themselves heretofore did who stood their Ground and generously maintained against them that Mind being the Maker of all things and not Fortune or Chance nor Arbitary Self-will and Irational Humour Omnipotent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is Absolutely the Best in every case so far as the Necessity of things would admit and in compliance with the Good of the Whole was the Measure and Rule both of Nature and Providence Again the Atomick Atheists further alledge that though there be many things in the world which serve well for Vses yet it does not at all follow that therefore they were made Intentionally and Designedly for those Vses because though things Happen by Chance to be so or so Made yet may they serve for something or other afterward and have their several Vses Consequent Wherefore all the things of Nature Happened say they by Chance to be so made as they are and their several Uses notwithstanding were Consequent or Following thereupon Thus the Epicurean Poet Nil ideo natum est in Corpore ut Vti Possemus sed quod Natum est id procreat Vsum. Nothing in mans Body was made out of design for any Vse but all the several Parts thereof happening to be so made as they are their Vses were Consequent thereupon In like manner the Old Atheistick Philosophers in Aristotle concluded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Former Teeth were made by Material or Mechanical Necessity Thin and Sharp by means whereof they became fit for Cutting but the Jaw-Teeth Thick and Broad whereby they became Vseful for the Grinding of Food But neither of them were Intended to be such for the sake of these Vses but Happened by Chance only And the like concerning all the other Parts of the Body which seem to be made for Ends. Accordingly the same Aristotle represents the sence of those ancient Atheists concerning the other Parts of the Universe or Things of Nature that they were all likewise made such by the Necessity of Material or Mechanical Motions Vndirected and yet had nevertheless their several
is Communicable that is all the Possibilities of things that may be made by it and their respective Truths Mind and Knowledge in the very Nature of it supposing the Actual Existence of an Omnipotent or Infinitely Powerful Being as its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Intelligible It being nothing but the Comprehension of the Extent of Infinite or Divine Power and the Measure of the same And from hence it is Evident also that there can be but One only Original Mind or no more than One Vnderstanding Being Self Existent all other Minds whatsoever Partaking of one Original Mind and being as it were Stamped with the Impression or Signature of one and the same Seal From whence it cometh to pass that all Minds in the several Places and Ages of the World have Ideas or Notions of Things Exactly Alike and Truths Indivisibly the Same Truths are not multiplied by the Diversity of Minds that apprehend them because they are all but Ectypal Participations of one and the same Original or Archetypal Mind and Truth As the same Face may be Reflected in several Glasses and the Image of the same Sun may be in a thousand Eyes at once beholding it and One and the same Voyce may be in a thousand Eares listning to it so when Innumerable Created Minds have the same Ideas of Things and Understand the Same Truths it is but One and the same Eternal Light that is Reflected in them all that Light which enlighteneth Every man that cometh into the World or the same Voyce of that One Everlasting Word that is never Silent Reechoed by them Thus was it concluded by Themistius that one man by Teaching could not Possibly beget in the Mind of another the very same Notions Conceptions and Knowledges which himself had in his own Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Were not the Minds both of the Teacher and of the Learner as it were Printed and Stamped alike As also that men could not Possibly so confer together as they do presently apprehending one anothers meaning and raising up the very Same senses in their Minds and that meerly by Occasion of Words and Sounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Were there not some One Mind which all men did Partake of As for that Anti-Monarchical Opinion of Many Vnderstanding Beings or Minds Self Originated and Independent none of which therefore could be Omnipotent it is neither Conceivable how such should all agree in the same Truths there being no Common Measure of Truth betwixt them no more than any Common Rule of their Wills nor indeed how they should have any Knowledge or Vnderstanding at all properly so called that being the Comprehension of the Possibilities of things or of the Extent of Infinite Power whereas according to this Hypothesis there is no Infinite Power at all the Power of each of those Many supposed Principles or Deities being Limited and Finite and therefore indeed not Creative of any thing neither since that which could Create one thing could Create all and consequently would have all depending upon it We conclude therefore That from the Nature of Mind and Knowledge it is Demonstrable That there can be but One Original and Self-Existent Mind or Vnderstanding Being from which all other Minds were derived And now have we more Copiously than we designed Confuted the First Atheistick Argument we having not only asserted the Idea of God and fully Answered and refelled all the Atheistick Pretences against the same but also from this very Idea of God or a Perfect Being Demonstrated his Existence We shall dispatch the following Atheistick Objections with more brevity WE come in the next place to the Achilles of the Atheists their Invincible Argument against a Divine Creation and Omnipotence because Nothing could come from Nothing It being concluded from hence that whatsoever Substantially or Really Is was from all Eternity Of It Self Unmade or Vncreated by any Deity Or else thus By God is alwayes Understood a Creator of some Real Entity or other out of Nothing but it is an Vndoubted Principle of Reason and Philosophy an Undenyable Common Notion That Nothing can be made out of Nothing and therefore there can be no such Creative Power as this And here we shall perform these Three Things First we shall show That in some Senses this is indeed an Vnquestionable Truth and Common Notion That Nothing can come from Nothing and what those Senses are Secondly We shall make it evident that in the Sense of this Atheistick Objection it is Absolutely False That Nothing can come from Nothing or be made out of Nothing and that a Divine Creation and Omnipotence can be no way Impugned from the forementioned Principle rightly Understood Thirdly and Lastly We shall prove That as from this Principle or Common Notion Nothing out of Nothing there can be no Execution at all done against Theism or a Divine Creation so from the very Same rightly Understood the Impossibility of all Atheism may be Demonstratively Proved it bringing Something out of Nothing in an Impossible Sense as also the Existence of a God Evinced We grant therefore in the First place that this is in some Sense an Vndoubted Principle of Reason or an Vndeniable Common Notion that Nothing can come from Nothing For First it is Unquestionably True That Nothing which once was not could ever Of It self come into Being or That Nothing could bring it Self out of Non-Existence into Being That Nothing can take Beginning of Existence from it Self or That Nothing can be Made or Produced without an Efficient Cause And from hence as hath been already Intimated is it Demonstratively Certain that every thing was not Made but that there is something Necessarily Self Existent and which could not But Be. For had every thing been Made then must something of Necessity have been Made out of Nothing by It Self which is Impossible Again As Nothing which was Not could ever Of It self come into Being or be Made without an Efficient Cause so is it certain likewise that Nothing can be Efficiently Caused or Produced by that which hath not in it at least Equal if not Greater Perfection as also Sufficient Power to Produce the same We say Nothing which was not could ever be brought into Being by that which hath not Formally Equal Perfection in it because Nothing can Give what it hath not and therefore so much of the Perfection or Entity of the Effect as is greater than that of the supposed Cause so much thereof must needs come from Nothing or be made without a Cause Moreover whatsoever hath Equal Perfection to another thing could not therefore Cause or Produce that other thing because it might either have no Active Power at all as Matter hath not it being meerly Passive or else no Sufficient Active and Productive Power As for Example though it be not Impossible That Motion which once was not should be Produced yet is it Impossible that it should be ever Produced without a Sufficient Cause Wherefore
falsity of this is sufficiently evident from what hath been already declared concerning Humane Souls their being undoubtedly Substances Incorporeal which therefore could never be Generated out of Matter and it will be further manifested afterwards But the Third and Last Sense is this That Nothing which is Materially Made out of things Prae-Existing as some are can have any other Real Entity then what was either before contained in or resulteth from the Things themselves so Modified Or That there can be no New Entities or Substances Naturally Generated out of Matter and therefore that all Natural Generations are really Nothing else but Mixtures or New Modifications of Things Prae-Existing These I say are all the Senses wherein it is Impossible That any thing should be Made out of Nothing or Come from Nothing and they may be all reduced to this One General Sense That Nothing can be Made out of Nothing Causally Or That Nothing cannot Cause Any thing either Efficiently or Materially Which as it is undeniably True So is it so far from making any thing against a Divine Creation or the Existence of a God that the same may be Demonstratively Proved and Evinced from it as shall be shewed afterward But there is another Sense wherein things may be said to be Made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or Out of Nothing when those words are not taken Causally but only so as to signifie the Terminus A quo or Term from which they are Made to wit an Antecedent Non-Existence And then the Meaning of this Proposition That Nothing can possibly be Made out of Nothing will be this That Nothing which once was Not could by any Power whatsoever be afterwards brought into Being And this is the Sense insisted on in this Second Atheistick Argumentation framed according to the Principles of the Democritick or Epicurean Atheism That no Real Entity which once was not could by any Power whatsoever be Made or brought out of Non-Existence into Being and consequently that no Creative Power out of Nothing can possibly belong to any thing though supposed never so Perfect In Answer whereunto we shall perform these Two Things First we shall make it appear that Nothing out of Nothing taken in this Sense declared is so far from being a Common Notion that it is not at all True And Secondly we shall prove that If it were True yet would it of the Two make more against Atheism then it doth against Theism and therefore ought by no means to be used by Atheists as an Argument against a Deity First therefore it is unquestionably certain That this cannot be Universally True That Nothing which once was not could possibly be Made or brought out of Non-Existence into Being because If it were then could there be no such thing as Making or Causing at all no Action nor Motion and consequently no Generation nor Mutation in the Corporeal Universe but the whole world would be like a Stiff Immoveable Adamantine Rock and this would doubtless be a better Argument against Motion then any of Zeno's was But we have all experience within our selves of a Power of Producing New Cogitations in our own Minds new Intellectual and Moral Habits as also New Local Motion in our Bodies or at least New Determinations thereof and of Causing thereby Nâ—w Modifications in Bodies without us And therefore are the Atheists forced to Restrain the Sense of this Proposition to Substantial Things only that though there may be New Accidents and Modifications Produced out of Nothing yet there can be no New Substancâ—s Made however they be not able in the mean time to give any Reason why One of those should be in it self more Impossible than the other or why no Substance should be Makeable But that some are so stagger'd with the Seeming Plausibility of this Argument is chiefly upon these following Accounts First by reason of the Confusion of their own Conceptions for because it is certain That Nothing can possibly be made out of Nothing in one Sense to wit Causally they not distinguishing Senses nor being aware of the Equivocation that is in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Out of Nothing inadvertently give their assent to those Words in a Wrong Sense that no Substance as Matter could possibly be brought out of Non-Existence into Being Secondly by reason of their Unskilful Arguing from Artificial Things When because Nothing can be Artificially Made but out of Pre-Existing Matter as a House or Garment and the like there being nothing done in the Production of these Things but only a New Modification of what before Substantially was they over hastily conclude that no Power whatsoever could produce any thing otherwise then out of Pre-Existing Matter and that Matter it self therefore could not possibly be Made In which Conceit they are again further confirmed from hence because the Old Physiologers maintained the same thing concerning Natural Generations likewise That nothing was in them produced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Out of Nothing neither or that there was no New Substance or Entity Made in them really distinct from the Pre-Existing Matter and its Modifications they Unwarily Extenâ—ing this beyond the Bounds of Physicks into Metaphysicks and unduly measuring or limiting Infinite Power accordingly Lastly because it is undeniably certain concerning Our Selves and all Imperfect Created Beings that none of these can Create any New Substance which was not before men are therefore apt to measure all things by their own scantling and to suppose it Universally Impossible according to Humane Reason for any Power whatsoever thus to Create whence it follows that Theology must in this be acknowledged to be Contradictious to the Principles of Natural Light and Vnderstanding But since it is certain that Imperfect Created Beings can themselves Produce Some Things out of Nothing Pre-Existing as New Cogitations and New Local Motion New Modifications and Transformations of things Corporeal it is very reasonable to think that an Absolutely Perfect Being could do something more that is Create New Substances out of Nothing or give them their Whole Being And it may well be thought to be as Easie for God or an Omnipotent Being to Make a Whole World Matter and all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Out of Nothing as it is for us to Create a Thought or to Move a Finger or for the Sun to send out Rayes or a Candle Light or lastly for any Opake Body to produce the Image of it self in Glasses or Water or to project a Shadow all these Imperfect Things being but the the contrary we shall make it manifest That this very Principle made use of by the Atheists is in Truth and Reality Contradictious to all manner of Atheism and destructive of the same the Atheists Universally Generating and Corrupting Real Entities and Substantial things that is Producing them out of Nothing or Non-Existence and reducing them to Nothing again for as much as they make all things whatsoever the bare Substance of Matter only excepted which to them is either
Efficiently by any thing which had not at least Equal Perfection in it and â— Sufficient Active or Productive Power and Consequently that no New Substance can be Made but by a Perfect Being which only is Substantially Emanative Thirdly and Lastly that when things are Made out of Pre-Existing Matter as in Artificial Productions and Natural Generations there can be no new Real Entity Produced but only different Modifications of what before Substantially was the Material Cause as such Efficiently Producing Nothing And thus was this Axiom Understood by Cicero That Nothing could be Made out of Nothing viz. Causally in his Book De Fato where he reprehendeth Epicurus for endeavouring to avoid Fate and to Establish Liberty of Will by that Absurd Figment of Atoms Declining Vncertainly from the Perpendicular Nec cum haec ita sint est causa cur Epicurus Fatum extimescat ab Atomis petat praesidium easque De Via deducat uno tempore suscipiat res duas inenodabiles Vnam ut sine Causâ fiat aliquid ex quo existet ut De Nihilo quippiam fiat quod nec ipsi nec cuiquam Physico placet Nor is there for all that any Reason why Epicurus should be so much afraid of Fate and seek Refuge in Atoms he supposing them in their Infinite Descents to Decline Vncertainly from the Perpendicular and laying this as a Foundation for Liberty of Will whereby he plunged himself at once into Two inextricable difficulties the First whereof was the supposing of Something to be made without a Cause or which is all one out of Nothing a thing that will neither be allowed be any Physiologer nor could Epicurus himself be Pleased or Satisfied therewith The reason whereof is because it was a Fundamental Principle of the Atomick Philosophy That Nothing in this Sense could be Made out of Nothing Moreover we have in the next place declared in what other Sense this Proposition that Nothing can be Made out of Nothing is False namely when this Out of Nothing is not taken Causally but so as to signifie the Terminus From which that Nothing can be Made out of an Antecedent Non-Existence that no Real Entity or Substance which before was not could by any Power whatsoever be afterwards brought into being Or That Nothing can possibly be Made but out of Something Pre-Existing by the new Modification thereof And it appears from that of Cicero that the True and Genuine Sense of this Proposition De Nihilo nihil fit according to the Mind of those Ancient Physiologers who laid so great stress thereupon was not that Nothing could by any Power whatsoever be brought out of Non-Existence into Being but only that Nothing could be made without a Cause Nor did they here by Cause mean the Material only in this sense as if Nothing could Possibly be Made but out of Prae-Existing Matter Epicurus being taxed by Cicero for introducing that his Third Motion of Atoms or Clinamen Principiorum out of Nothing or Without an Efficient Cause as indeed all Motion also was to those Atomick Atheists in this Sense from Nothing Nevertheless we have also shewed That if this Proposiâ—ion Nothing out of Nothing in that Atheistick Sense as level'd against a Deity were True yet would it of the Two more impugn Atheism it self than it does Theism the Atheists Generating and Corrupting All Things the Substance of Matter only excepted all Life Sense and Vnderstanding Humane Souls Minds and Personalities they Producing these and consequently Themselves out of Nothing and resolving them all to Nothing again We shall now in the Third and Last place make it manifest that the Atheists do not only bring Real Entities and Substantial things out of Nothing in the Second sense that is out of an Antecedent Non Existence which yet is a thing Possible only to God or a Perfect Being but also that they bring them out of Nothing in the Absolutely Impossible Sense that is suppose them to be Made without a Cause or Nothing to be the Cause of Something But we must prepare the way hereunto by setting down First a Brief and Compendious Sum of the whole Atheistick Hypothesis The Atheists therefore who contend that Nothing can be Made but only New Accidents or Modifications of Pre-Existing Substance Taking it for granted that there is no other Substance besides Body or Matter do conclude accordingly that Nothing can be Made but out of Pre-Existing Matter or Body And then they add hereunto That Matter being the only Substance the only Vnmade Self-Existent thing whatsoever else is in the world besides the bare Substance of this Matter was Made out of it or Produced by it So that there are these Three Things contained in the Atheistick Hypothesis First that No Substance can be Made or Caused by any thing else but only new Modifications Secondly that Matter or Body is the Only Substance and therefore whatsoever is made is Made out of Pre Existing Matter Thirdly and Lastly That whatsoever there is else in the whole world besides the Substance of Matter it is Made or Generated out of Matter And now we shall demonstrate the Absolute Impossibility of this Atheistick Hypothesis from that very Principle of the Ancient Physiologers that Nothing can be Made out of Nothing in the True Sense thereof it not only bringing Real Entities and Substantial Things out of an Antecedent Non-Existence though nothing but an Infinitly Perfect Being neither can thus Create but also Producing them without A Cause First therefore when they affirm Matter to be the Only Substance and all things else whatsoever to be Made out of that alone they hereby plainly Suppose all things to be Made without an Efficient Cause which is to bring them out of Nothing in an Impossible Sense For though it be not True that Nothing can be Made but out of Pre-Existing Matter and consequently that God himself supposed to Exist could in this respect do no more than a Carpenter or Taylor doth I say though it be not Universally True That every thing that is Made must have a Material Cause so that the Quaternio of Causes in Logick is not to be Extended to all things Caused whatsoever yet is it certain that Nothing which once was not could Possibly be Made without an Efficient Cause Wherefore if there be any thing Made which was not before there must of Necessity besides Matter be some other Substance Existing as the Efficient Cause thereof for as much as Matter alone Could not Make any thing as Marble cannot make a Statue nor Timber and Stones a House nor Cloth a Garment This is our First Demonstration of the Impossibility of the Atheistick Hypothesis it supposing all things besides the bare Substance of Matter to be Made out of Matter alone without any other Active Principle or Deity or to be Made without an Efficient Cause which is to bring them from Nothing in an Impossible Sense To which may be added by way of Appendix
opinion seems so Strange and Paradoxical and lies under so great Prejudices we shall in the next place show how these ancient Incorporealists endeavoured to acquit themselves in repelling the several Efforts and Plausibilities made against it The First whereof is this That to suppose Incorporeal Substances Vnextended and Indivisible is to make them Absolute Parvitudes and by means of that to render them all even the Deity it self contemptible since they must of necessity be either Physical Minimums that cannot Actually be Divided further by reason of their Littleness if there be any such thing or else meer Mathematical Points which are not so much as Mentally Divisible so that Thousands of these Incorporeal Substances or Spirits might Dance together at once upon a Needles Point To which it was long since thus Replied by Plotinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and all other Incorporeal Substances are not so Indivisible as if they were Parvitudes or Little things as Physical points for so would they still be Mathematically Divisible nor yet as if they were Mathematical Points neither which indeed are no Bodies nor Substances but only The Termini of a Line And neither of these wayes could the Deity Congruere with the world nor Souls with their respective Bodies so as to be all present with the whole of them Again he writeth particularly concerning the Deity thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is not so Indivisible as if he were the Smallest or Least of things for he is the Greatest of all not in respect of Magnitude but of Power Moreover as he is Indivisible so is he also to be acknowledged Infinite not as if he were either a Magnitude or a Number which could never be past thorough but because his Power is Incomprehensible Moreover the same Philosopher condemneth this for a Vulgar Errour proceeding from Sense and Imagination that whatsoever is Vnextended and Indistant must therefore needs be Little he affirming on the contrary the Vulgar to be much mistaken as to True Greatness and Littleness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We commonly looking upon this Sensible world as Great wonder how that Indivisible and Unextended Nature of the Deity can every where comply and be present with it Whereas that which is Vulgarly called Great is indeed Little and that which is thus Imagined to be Little is indeed Great For as much as the whole of This diffuseth it self through every part of the other or rather this whole Corporeal Vniverse in every one of its parts findeth that Whole and Entire and therefore Greater than it self To the same purpose also Porphyrius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Deity which is the only true Being is neither Great nor Little For as much as Great and Little properly belong to Corporeal Bulk or Magnitude but it exceedeth both the Greatness of every thing that is Great and the Littleness of whatsoever is Little it being more Indivisible and more One with it self than any thing that is Little and more Powerful than any thing that is Great So that it is above both the Greatest and the Least it being found all one and the same by every Greatest and every Smallest thing participating thereof Wherefore you must neither look upon God as the Greatest thing that is in a way of Quantity for then you may well doubt how being the Greatest He can be all of him present with every Least thing neither diminished nor contracted nor yet must you Look upon him as the Least thing neither for if you do so then will you be at a loss again how being the Least thing he can be present with all the Greatest Bulks neither Multiplied nor Augmented In a word the Sum of their Answer amounts to this that an Incorporeal Vnextended Deity is neither a Physical Point because this hath Distance in it and is Mentally Divisible nor yet a Mathematical One because This though having neither Magnitude nor Substance in it hath notwithstanding Site and Position a Point being according to Aristotle a Monad having Site and Position It is not to be conceived as a Parvitude or very Little thing because then it could not Congruere with all the Greatest things nor yet as a Great thing in a way of Quantity and Extension because then it could not be All of it Present to every Least thing Nor does True Greatness consist in a way of Bulk or Magnitude all Magnitude being but Little since there can be no Infinite Magnitude and no Finite Magnitude can have Infinite Power as Aristotle before urged And to conclude though some who are far from Atheists may make themselves merry with that Conceit of Thousands of Spirits dancing at once upon a Needles Point and though the Atheists may endeavour to Rogue and Ridicule all Incorporeal Substance in that manner yet does this run upon a clear Mistake of the Hypothesis and make nothing at all against it for as much as an Vnextended Substance is neither any Parvitude as is here supposed because it hath no Magnitude at all nor hath it any Place or Site or Local Motion properly belonging to it and therefore can neither Dance upon a Needles Point nor any where else But in the next place it is further Objected That What is neither Great nor Little what possesses no Space and hath no Place nor Site amongst Bodies must therefore needs be an Absolute Non-Entity for as much as Magnitude or Extension are the very Essence of Being or Entity as such so that there can be neither Substance nor Accident Unextended Now since whatsoever is Extended is Bodily there can therefore be no other Substance besides Body nor any thing Incorporeal otherwise then as that word may be taken for a Thin and Subtile Body in which Sense Fire was by some in Aristotle said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most Incorporeal of all the Elements and Aristotle himself useth the word in the same manner when he affirmeth that all Philosophers did define the Soul by Three things Motion Sense and Incorporiety several of those there mentioned by him understanding the Soul to be no otherwise Incorporeal than as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Thin and Subtle Body In answer to which Objection we may remember that Plato in the passage before cited declareth this to be but a Vulgar Errour that whatsoever doth not take up Space and is in no Place is Nothing He Intimateing the Original hereof to have sprung from men's adhering too much to those Lower Faculties of Sense and Imagination which are able to conceive Nothing but what is Corporeal And accordingly Plotinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sense indeed which we attending to disbelieve these things tells us of Here and There but Reason dictates that Here and There is so to be understood of the Deity not as if it were Extendedly Here and There but because every Extended thing and the several Parts of the World partake every
where of that being Indistant and Vnextended To the same purpose Porphyrius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We ought therefore in our Disquisitions concerning Corporeal and Incorporeal Beings to conserve the Property of each and not to confound their Natures But especially to take heed that our Phancy and Imagination do not so far impose upon our judgments as to make us attribute to Incorporeals what properly belongeth to Bodies only For we are all accustomed to Bodies but as for Incorporeals scarcely any one reaches to the knowledge of them men alwaies fluctuating about them and diffiding them so long as they are held under the Power of their Imagination Where afterwards he propoundeth a Form for this How we should think of Incorporeals so as not to Confound their Natures with Corporeals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Indistant and Vnextended Deity is the Whole of it present in Infinite Parts of the Distant World neither Divided as applying part to part nor yet Multiplied into many Wholes according to the multiplicity of those things that partake thereof But the whole of it One and the same in Number is present to all the Parts of the Bulkie World and to every one of those many things in it Vndividedly and Vnmultipliedly that in the mean time partaking thereof Dividedly It was granted therefore by these Ancients that this Vnextended and Indistant Nature of Incorporeals is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing altogether Vnimaginable and this was concluded by them to be the only Reason why so many have pronounced it to be Impossible because they attended only to Sense and Imagination and made them the only Measure of Things and Truth it having been accordingly maintained by divers of them as Porphyrius tells us that Imagination and Intellection are but Two different Names for one and the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is a difference of Names only and no more betwixt Mind and Phancy Phancy and Imagination in Rational Animals seeming to be the same thing with Intellection But there are many things which no man can have any Phantasm or Imagination of and yet are they notwithstanding by all Unquestionably acknowledged for Entities or Realities from whence it is plain that we must have some other Faculties in us which Extend beyond Phansie and Imagination Reason indeed dictates that whatsoever can either Do or Suffer any thing must therefore be undoubtedly Something but that whatsoever is Vnextended and hath no Distant Parts one without another must therefore needs be Nothing is no Common Notion but the Spurious Suggestion of Imagination only and a Vulgar Errour There need to be no fear at all Lest a Being Infinitely Wise and Powerful which Acts upon the whole world and all the Parts thereof in Framing and Governing the same should prove a Non-Entity meerly for want of Bulk and Extension or because it Swells not out into Space and Distance as Bodies do therefore Vanish into Nothing Nor does Active Force and Power as such depend upon Bulk and Extension because then whatsoever had the greater Bulk would have the greater Activity There are therefore Two kinds of Substances in the Universe the First Corporeal which are Nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bulks or Tumours devoid of all Self-Active Power the Second Incorporeal which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Substantial Powers Vigours and Activities which though they act upon Bulk and Extension yet are themselves Vnbulkie and devoid of Quantity and Dimensions however they have a certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them in another sense an Essential Profundity according to this of Simplicius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All Corporeal Substance is simply Divisible some Parts of it being here and some there but Intellectual Substance is Indivisible and without Dimensions though it hath much of Depth ond Profundity in it in another Sense But that there is some thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnimaginable even in Body it self is evident whether you will suppose it to be Infinitely Divisible or Not as you must of necessity suppose one or other of these And that we ought not always to pronounce of Corporeal Things themselves according to Imagination is manifest from hence because though Astronomical Reasons assure us that the Sun is really more than a Hundred Times bigger than the whole Earth yet can we not possibly for all that Imagine the Sun of such a Bigness nor indeed the Earth it self half so big as we know it to be The reason whereof is partly because we never had a Sense or Sight of any such Vast Bigness at once as that of either of them and partly because our Sense always representing the Sun to us but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as of a Foot Diameter and we being accustomed always to Imagine the same according to the Appearance of Sense are not able to frame any Imagination of it as very much Bigger Wherefore if Imagination be not to be Trusted nor made the Criterion or Measure of Truth as to Sensible things themselves much less ought it to be as to Things Insensible Besides all which the Ancient Incorporealists argued after this manner that it is as Difficult for us to conceive a Substance whose Duration is Vnextended or Vnstretched out in Time into Past Present and Future and therefore without Beginning as that which is Vnextended as to Parts Place or Space in Length Breadth and Thickness yet does Reason pronounce that there must needs be not only a Duration without Beginning but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Timeless Eternity or a Permanent Duration differing from that Successive Flux of Time which is one of Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Things Generated or that had a Beginning This Parity of Reason is by Plotinus thus insisted on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the same reason that we deny Local Extension to the Deity must we also deny Temporal Distance to the same and affirm that God is not in Time but above Time in Eternity For as much as Time is alwaies Scattered and Stretched out in Length and Distance one moment following after another but Eternity remaineth in the same without any Flux and yet nevertheless outgoeth Time and transcendeth the Flux thereof though seeming to be stretched and spun out more into Length Now the reason why we cannot frame a Conception of such a Timeless Eternity is only because our selves are Essentially Involved in Time and accordingly are our Conceptions Chained Fettered and Confined to that narrow and dark Dungeon that our selves are Imprisoned in Notwithstanding which our Freer Faculties assuring us of the Existence of a Being which far transcendeth our selves to wit one that is Infinitely Perfect we have by means hereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a certain Vaticination of such a Standing Timeless Eternity as its Duration But as for that Conceit of Immaterial or Incorporeal Bodies or that God and Humane Souls are no otherwise Incorporeal then as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Thin and
and them Thus Pletho declares their Sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By this Etherial Body is our Humane Soul Connected with its Mortal Body the whole thereof being Implicated with the whole Vital Spirit of the Embryo for as much as this it self is a Spirit also But long before Pletho was this Doctrine declared and asserted by Galen as agreeable both to Plato's and his own sense He first Premising that the Immediate Organ or Instrument of Sight was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Luciform and Ethereal Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore we may reasonably affirm that the Organ of Sight is a Luciform or Etherial Body as that of Hearing is Aerial that of Smelling Vaporous that of Tast Moist or Watery and That of Touch Earthy like being perceived by like And He accordingly thus understanding those Known Verses of Empedocles which as Aristotle otherwise interprets them are Nonsense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And this was that which Empedocles meant to signifie in those famous Verses of his it being certain that by the most Earthy of our Senses the Touch we perceive the Earthy Nature of Sensibles and by the most Luciform viz. that of Sight the Passions of Light by that which is Aerial Sounds by that which is Moist and Sponge-like Tasts and Lastly by the Organ of Smelling which is the Extremity of those Former Cavities of the Brain as replenished with Vapours Odours After which he writeth of the Essence or Substance of the Soul in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if we should now declare any thing concerning the Essence or Substance of the Soul we must needs affirm one or other of these Two things That either it self is this Luciform and Etherial Body which the Stoicks whether they will or no by consequence will be brought unto as also Aristotle himself or else that the Soul is it self an Incorporeal Substance but that this Luciform Etherial Body is its First Vehicle by which as a Middle it communicates with the other Bodies Wherefore we must say that this Etherial Lucid Body is Extended throughout the whole Brain whence is that Luciform Spirit derived that is the Immediate Instrument of Sight Now from hence it was that these Philosophers besides the Moral Purgation of the Soul and the Intellectual or Philosophical recommended very much a Mystical or Telestick way of Purifying this Etherial Body in us by Dyet and Catharms Thus the forementioned Hierocles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Since to our Lucid or Splendid Body this Gross Mortal Body is come by way of Accession we ought to Purifie the Former also and free it from Sympathy with the Latter And again afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Together with the Purgations of the Rational Soul the Purification of the Luciform or Etherial Vehicle is also to be regarded that this being made Light and Alate or Wingy might no way hinder the Souls Ascent upward But he that endeavours to Purifie the Mind only neglecting the Body applies not himself to the whole Man Whereupon he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I therefore call this the Telestick or Mystick Operation which is Conversant about the Purgation of the Lucid or Etherial Vehicle And whereas Philosophy was by Plato and Socrates Defined to be a Continual Exercise of Dying which yet Pliny thought to be nothing but an Hypochondriacal or Atrabilarian Distemper in them in those words of his which Salmasius and other Criticks can by no means understand Est etiam quidam Morbus Per Sapientiam Mori That the Dying by Wisdom or Philosophy is also but a certain kind of Bodily Disease or Over-grown Melancholy Though they supposed this principally to consist in a Moral Dying to Corporeal Lusts and Passions yet was the design thereof partly Mystical and Telestick also it driving at this further thing that when they should put off this Terrestrial Body they might at once Dye also to the Spirituous or Aerial and then their Soul have nothing left hanging about it but only the Pure Etherial Body its Light winged Chariot which in Virgil's Language is Purumque relinqui Aethereum Sensum atque Aurai Simplicis Ignem Notwithstanding which the Pythagoreans and Platonists seem not to have been all of them of this Perswasion that the same Numerical Etherial Body which the Soul was at first Created with continueth still about it and adhereth to it Inseparably to all Eternity during its Descents into other Grosser Bodies but rather to have supposed that according to the Moral Disposition of the Soul it always finds or makes a Cognate and Suitable Body Correspondently Pure or Impure and consequently that by Moral Vertue and Philosophy it might again recover that Celestial Body which was lost by its Fall and Descent hither This seemeth to have been Porphyrius his sense in these words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 However the Soul be in it self affected so does it alwaies find a Body suitable and agreeable to its present Disposition and therefore to the Purged Souls does Naturally accrue a Body that comes next to Immateriality that is an Etherial one And probably Plato was of the same Mind when he affirmed the Soul to be alwaies in a Body but sometimes of one kind and sometimes of another Now from what hath been declared it appeareth already that the most Ancient Asserters of the Incorporiety and Immortality of the Humane Soul supposed it notwithstanding to be Always Conjoyned with a Body Thus Hierocles plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Rational Nature having alwaies a Cognate Body so proceeded from the Demiurgus as that neither it self is Body nor yet can it be without Body but though it self be Incorporeal yet its whole Form notwithstanding is Terminated in a Body Accordingly whereunto the Definition which he gives of a Man is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rational Soul together with a Cognate Immortal Body he concluding there afterwards that this Enlivened Terrestrial Body or Mortal man is nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Image of The True man or an Accession thereunto which is therefore Separable from the same Neither doth he affirm this only of Humane Souls but also of all other Rational Beings whatsoever Below the Supreme Deity and Above Men that they always Naturally Actuate a Body Wherefore a Demon or Angel which words are used as Synonymous by Hierocles is also Defined by him after the same manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rational Soul together with a Lucid Body And accordingly Proclus upon Plato's Timaeus affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That every Demon Superiour to our Humane Souls hath both an Intellectual Soul and an Ethereal Vehicle the Entireness thereof being made up or Compounded of these Two things So that there is hardly any other Difference left betwixt Demons or Angels and Men according to these Philosophers but only this That the Former are Lapsable into Aereal Bodies only
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no such Solid Body as they might find him to have bidding them therefore handle him to remove that Scruple of theirs As if he should have said Though Spirits or Ghosts and Souls Departed have Bodies or Vehicles which may by them be so far Condensed as sometimes to make a Visible appearance to the Eyes of men yet have they not any such Solid Bodies as those of Flesh and Bone and therefore by Feeling and Handling may you satisfie your selves that I am not a meer Spirit Ghost or Soul Appearing as others have frequently done without a Miracle but that I appear in that very same Solid Body wherein I was Crucified by the Jews by miraculous Divine Power raised out of the Sepulchre and now to be found no more there Agreeable to which of our Saviour Christ is that of Apollonius in Philostratus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Touch me and Handle me and if you find me to avoid the Touch then may you conclude me to be a Spirit or Ghost that is a Soul departed but if I firmly resist the same then believe me Really to live and not yet to have cast off the Body And indeed though Spirits or Ghosts had certain Subtle Bodies which they could so far Condense as to make them sometimes Visible to men yet is it reasonable enough to think that they could not Constipate or Fix them into such a Firmness Grossness and Solidity as that of Flesh and Bone is to continue therein or at least not without such Difficulty and Pain as would hinder them from attempting the same Notwithstanding which it is not denied but that they may possibly sometimes make use of other Solid Bodies Moving and Acting them as in that famous Story of Phlegons where the Body Vanished not as other Ghosts use to do but was left a Dead Carcase behind Now as for our Saviour Christ's Body after his Resurrection and before his Ascension which notwithstanding its Solidity in Handling yet sometimes Vanished also out of his Disciples sight this probably as Origen conceived was purposely conserved for a time in a certain Middle State betwixt the Craâ—sities of a Mortal Body and the Spirituality of a Perfectly Glorified Heavenly Etherial Body But there is a place of Scripture which as it hath been interpreted by the Generality of the Ancient Fathers would Naturally Imply even the Soul of our Saviour Christ himself after his Death and before his Resurrection not to have been quite Naked from all Body but to have had a certain Subtle or Spirituous Clothing and it is this of St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which being understood by those Ancients of our Saviour Christ's descending into Hades or Hell is accordingly thus rendered in the Vulgar Latin Put to Death In the Flesh bút Quickned in the Spirit In which Spirit also he went and preached to those Spirits that were in Prison c. So that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Spirit here according to this interpretation is to be taken for a Spirituous Body the Sense being this That when our Saviour Christ was put to death in the Flesh or the Fleshly Body he was Quickned in the Spirit or a Spirituous Body In which Spirituous Body also he went and preached to those Spirits that were in Prison c. And doubtless it would be said by the Asserters of this Interpretation that the word Spirit could not here be taken for the Soul of our Saviour Christ because this being Naturally Immortal could not properly be said to be Quickned and Made Alive Nor could He that is our Saviour Christ's Soul be so well said to go In this Spirit neither that is In it self the Soul in the Soul to preach to the Spirits in Prison They would add also that Spirit here could not be taken for the Divine Spirit neither which was the Efficient Cause of the Vivification of our Saviour's Body at his Resurrection because then there would be no direct Opposition betwixt Being put to Death in the Flesh and Quickned in the Spirit unless they be taken both alike Materially As also the following Verse is thus to be understood That our Saviour Christ went in that Spirit wherein he was Quickned when he was Put to Death In the Flesh and therein preached to the Spirits in Prison By which Spirits in Prison also would be meant not Pure Incorporeal Substances or Naked Souls but Souls Clothed with Subtle Spirituous Bodies as that word may be often understood elsewhere in Scripture But thus much we are unquestionably certain of from the Scripture That not only Elias whose Terrestrial Body seems to have been in part at least Spiritualized in his Ascent in that Fiery Chariot but also Moses appeared Visibly to our Saviour Christ and his Disciples upon the Mount and therefore since Piety will not permit us to think this a meer Prestigious thing in Real Bodies which Bodies also seem to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luciform or Lucid like to our Saviour's then Transfigured Body Again there are sundry places of Scripture which affirm that the Regenerate and Renewed have here in this Life a certain Earnest of their Future Inheritance which is their Spiritual or Heavenly Body as also the Quickning of their Mortal Bodies is therein attributed to the Efficiency of the Spirit Dwelling in them Which is a Thing that hath been taken notice of by Some of the Ancients as Irenaeus Nunc autem Partem aliquam Spiritus ejus sumimus ad Perfectionem Praeparationem Incorruptelae paulatim assuescentes Capere Portare Deum Quod Pignus dixit Apostolus hoc est Partem ejus Honoris qui à Deo nobis promissus est Si ergo Pignus hoc habitans in nobis jam Spirituales effecit absorbetur Mortale ab Immortalitate Now have we a Part of that Spirit for the Preparation and Perfection of Incorruption we being accustomed by little and little to Receive and Bear God Which also the Apostle hath called an Earnest that is a Part of that Honour which is promised to us from God If therefore this Earnest or Pledge dwelling in us hath made us already Spiritual the Mortal is also swallowed up by Immortality And Novatian Spiritus Sanctus id agit in nobis ut ad Aeternitatem ad Resurrectionem Immortalitatis corpora nostra perducat dum illa in se assuefacit cum Caelesti Virtute misceri This is that which the Holy Spirit doth in us namely to bring and lead on our Bodies to Eternity and the Resurrection of Immortality whilst in it self it accustometh us to be mingled with the Heavenly Vertue Moreover there are some places also which seem to imply that Good Men shall after Death have a Further Inchoation of their Heavenly Body the full Completion whereof is not to be expected before the Resurrection or Day of Judgment We know that If our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we
Angels Post Peccatum in hanc sunt detrusi Caliginem ubi tamen Aer That after their Sin they were thrust down down into the Misty darkness of this Lower Air. And here are they as it were Chained and Fettered also by that same Weight of their Gross and heavy Bodies which first sunk them down hither this not suffering them to reascend up or return back to those Bright Etherial Regions above And being thus for the present Imprisoned in this Lower Tartarus or Caliginous Air or Atmosphere they are indeed here Kept and Reserved in Custody unto the Judgment of the Great Day and General Assizes however they may notwithstanding in the mean time seem to Domineer and Lord it for a while here And Lastly our Saviours Go ye Cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels seems to be a clear Confirmation of Devils being Bodied because First to Allegorize this Fire into nothing but Remorse of Conscience would indanger the rendering of other Points of our Religion uncertain also but to say that Incorporeal Substances Vnunited to Bodies can be tormented with Fire is as much as in us lieth to expose Christianity and the Scripture to the Scorn and Contempt of all Philosophers and Philosophick Wits Wherefore Psellus laies no small stress upon this Place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am also convinced of this That Demons have Bodies from the words of our Saviour affirming That they shall be Punished with Fire which how could it be were they altogether Incorporeal it being Impossible for that which is both it self Incorporeal and Vitally Vnunited to any Body to suffer from a Body Wherefore of necessity it must be granted by us Christians that Devils shall receive Punishment of Sense and Pain hereafter in Bodies capable of Suffering Now if Angels in general that is all Created Beings Superiour to men be Substances Incorporeal or Souls Vitally United to Bodies though not always the same but sometimes of one kind and sometimes times of another and never quite Separate from all Body it may seem probable from hence that though there be other Incorporeal Substances besides the Deity yet Vita Incorporea a Life perfectly Incorporeal in the forementioned Origenick Sense or Sine Corporeae Adjectionis Societate Vivere to Live altogether without the Society of any Corporeal Adjection is a Privilege properly belonging to the Holy Trinity only and consequently therefore that Humane Souls when by Death they are Devested of these Gross Earthly Bodies they do not then Live and Act Compleatly without the Conjunction of any Body and so continue till the Resurrection or Day of Judgment this Being a priviledge which not so much as the Angels themselves and therefore no Created Finite Being is capable of the Imperfection of whose Nature necessarily requires the Conjunction of some Body with them to make them up Complete without which it is unconceivable how they should either have Sense or Imagination And Thus doth Origen Consentaneously to his own Principles Conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Soul which in its own Nature is Incoâ—poreal and Invisible in whatsoever Corporeal place it Existeth doth always stand in need of a Body suitable to the Nature of that place respectively Which Body it sometimes beareth having Put Off that which before was necessary but is now Superfluous for the Following State and sometimes again Putting On something to what before it had now standing in need of some better Clothing to fit it for those more Pure Etherial and Heavenly places But in what there follows we conceive that Origen's sense having not been rightly understood his words have been altered and perverted and that the whole place ought to be read thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sense whereof iâ— this The Soul descending hither into Generation Put on first that Body which was useful for it whilst to continue in the Womb and then again afterward such a Body as was necessary for it to Live here upon the Earth in Again it having here a Two fold kind of Body the one of which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by St. Paul being a more Subtle Body which it had before the other the Superinduced Earthly House necessarily subservient to this Schenos here the Scripture Oracles affirm that the Earthly House of this Schenos shall be corrupted or dissolved but the Schenos it self Superindue or Put On a House not made with hands Eternal in the Heavens The same declaring that the Corruptible shall put on Incorruption and the Mortal Immortality Where it is plain that Origen takes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Paul 1 Cor. 5.1 for a Subtle Body which the Soul had before its Terrene Nativity and which Continues with it after death but in good men will at last Superindue or Put on without Death the Clothing of Immortality Neither can there be a better Commentary upon this place of Origen than those Excerpta out of Methodius the Martyr in Photius though seeming to be Vitiated also where as we conceive the sense of Origen and his Followers is first contained in those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That in St. Paul the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is One thing and the Earthly House of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Another thing and We that is our Souls a Third thing distinct from both And then it is further declared in this that follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That this short Life of our Earthly Body being destroyed our Soul shall then have before the Resurrection a dwelling from God until we shall at last receive it renewed restored and so made an Incorruptible House Wherefore in this we groan desirous not to put off all Body but to put on Life or Immortality upon the Body which we shall then have For that House which is from Heaven That we desire to put on is Immortality Moreover that the Soul is not altogether Naked after Death the same Origen endeavours to confirm further from that of our Saviour concerning the Rich Man and Lazarus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Rich man Punished and the Poor man refreshed in Abraham 's bosome before the Coming of our Saviour and before the end of the world and therefore before the Resurrection plainly teaches that even now also after Death the Soul useth a Body He thinketh the same also to be further proved from the Visible Apparition of Samuel's Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Samuel also visibly appearing after Death maketh it manifest that his Soul was then clothed with a Body To which he adds in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That the Exteriour Form and Figure of the Souls Body after Death doth resemble that of the Gross Terrestrial Body here in this Life All the Histories of Apparitions making Ghosts or the Souls of the Dead to appear in the same Form which their Bodies had before This therefore as was observed is that which Origen understands by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
betwixt the Death of the Body and the Resurrection or Day of Judgment the Souls of the Dead be said to suffer such a Fire as can do no Execution upon those who have no Wood Hay nor Stuble to burn up but shall be felt by such as have made such Buildings or Superstructures c. I reprehend it not because perhaps it is True The Opinion here mentioned is thus Expressed by Origen in his Fifth Book against Celsus which very place St. Austin seems to have had respect to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus did not understand That this Fire as well according to the Hebrews and Christians as to some of the Greeks will be Purgatory to the World as also to every one of those persons who stand in need of such Punishment and Remedy by Fire which Fire can do no Execution upon those who have no combustible Matter in them but will be felt by such as in the Moral structure of their Thoughts Words and Actions have built up Wood Hay and Stuble Now since Souls cannot suffer from Fire nor any thing else in way of Sense or Pain without being Vitally Vnited to some Body we may conclude that St. Austin when he wrote this was not altogether abhorrent from Souls having Bodies after Death Hitherto have we declared How the Ancient Asserters of Incorporeal Substance as Vnextended did repel the Assaults of Atheists and Corporealists made against it but especially How they quitted themselves of that Absurdity of the Illocality and Immobility of Finite Created Spirits by Supposing them always to be Vitally Vnited to some Bodies and consequently by the Locality of those their respective Bodies determined to Here and There according to that of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Soul stands in need of a Body in order to Local Motions We shall in the next place declare what Grounds of Reason there were which induced those Ancients to assert and maintain a thing so repugnant to Sense and Imagination and consequently to all Vulgar Apprehension as a Substance in it self Vnextended Indistant and Indivisible or Devoid of Magnitude and Parts Wherein we shall only represent the Sense of these Ancient Incorporealists so far as we can to the best advantage in order to their Vindication against Atheists and Materialists our selves in the mean time not asserting any thing but leaving every one that can to make his own Judgment and so either to close with this or that other following Hypothesis of Extended Incorporeals Now it is here observable That it was a thing formerly taken for granted on both sides as well by the Asserters as the Deniers of Incorporeal Substance That there is but One kind of Extension only and Consequently that whatsoever hath Magnitude and Parts or One Thing Without Another is not only Intellectually and Logically but also Really and Physically Divisible or Discerpible as likewise Antitypous and Impenetrable so that it cannot Coexist with a Body in the same Place from whence it follows that whatsoever Arguments do evince That there is some other Substance besides Body the same do therefore Demonstrate according to the Sense of these Ancients as well Corporealists as Incorporealists that there is Something Vnextended it being supposed by them both alike that whatsoever is Extended is Body Nevertheless we shall here principally propound such Considerations of theirs as tend directly to Prove That there is something Vnextendedly Incorporeal And that an Vnextended Deity is no Impossible Idea to wit from hence because there is something Vnextended even in our very Selves Where not to repeat the forementioned Ratiocinacion of Simplicius That whatsoever can Act and Reflect upon its Whole Self cannot possibly be Extended nor have Parts Distant from one another Plotinus first argues after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then will they say who contend that the Soul is a Body or Extended whether or no will they grant concerning every Part of the Soul in the same Body as that of it which is in the Foot and that in the Hand and that in the Brain c. and again every Part of those Parts that each of them is Soul such as the Whole If this be consented to then is it plain that Magnitude or such a Quantity would confer nothing at all to the Essence of the Soul as it would do were it an Extended Thing but the Whole would be in many Parts or Places which is a thing that cannot possibly belong to Body That the same Whole should be in more and That a Part should be what the whole is But if they will not grant every Part of their Extended Soul to be Soul then according to them must the Soul be Made up and Compounded of Soul-less Things Which Argument is else where again thus propounded by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If every one of the Parts of this Extended Soul or Mind have Life in it then would any one of them alone be sufficient But to say that though none of the Parts alone bave Life in them yet the Conjunction of them altogether maketh Life is absurd it being impossible that Life and Soul should result from a Congeries of Lifeless and Souless things or that Mindless things put together should beget Mind The sum of this Argumentation is this That either every part of an Extended Soul is Soul and of an Extended Mind Mind or not Now if no Part of a Soul as supposed to be Extended alone be Soul or have Life and Mind in it then is it certain that the Whole resulting from all the Parts could have no Life nor Mind because Nothing can Causally come from Nothing It is true indeed that Corporeal Qualities and Forms according to the Atomick Physiology result from a Composition and Contexture of Atoms or Parts each of which taken alone by themselves have nothing of that Quality or Form in them Ne ex Albis Alba rearis Aut ea quae Nigrant nigro de Semine nata You are not to think that White things are made out of White principles nor Black things out of Black but the Reason of the difference here is plain because these Qualities and Forms are not Entities Really distinct from the Magnitude Figure Site and Motion of Parts but only such a Composition of them as cause different Phancies in us but Life and Vnderstanding Soul and Mind are Entities Really distinct from Magnitude Figure Site and Motion of Parts they are neither meer Phancies nor Syllables of things but Simple and Vncompounded Realities But if every supposed Part of a Soul be Soul and of a Mind Mind then would all the rest of it besides any One Part be Superfluous or indeed every supposed Part thereof would be the Same with the Whole from whence it follows that it could not be Extended or have any Real Parts at all since no Part of an Extended thing can possibly be the Same with the Whole Again the same Philosopher endeavours further to prove
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of all the Motions Passions and Affections and even the very Volitions of the Soul So that as we could not have the least Sensation Imagination nor Conception of any thing otherwise than from those Corporeal Effluvia rushing upon us from Bodies without and begetting the same in us at such a time so neither could we have any Passion Appetite or Volition which we were not in like manner Corporeally Passive to And this was the Ground of the Democritick Fate or Necessity of all Humane Actions maintained by them in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Liberty of Will which cannot be conceived without Self Activity and something of Contingency They supposing Humane Volitions also as well as all the other Cogitations to be Mechanically Caused and Necessitated from those Effluvious Images of Bodies coming in upon the Willers And however Epicurus sometime pretended to Assert Liberty of Will against Democritus yet forgetting himself did he also here securely Philosophize after the very same manner Nunc age quae moveant Animum res accipe paucis Quae veniunt veniant in Mentem percipe paucis Principiò hoc dico Rerum Simulachra vagari c. But others there were amongst the Ancient Atomists who could not conceive Sensations themselves to be thus Caused by Corporeal Effluvia or Exuvious Membranes streaming from Bodies Continually and that for Divers Reasons alledged by them but only by a Pressure from them upon the Optick Nerve by Reason of a Tension of the Intermedious Air or Aether being that which is called Light whereby the distant Object is Touched and Felt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were by a Staff Which Hypothesis concerning the Corporeal Part of Sense is indeed much more Ingenious and agreeable to Reason than the Former But the Atheizers of this Atomology as they supposed Sense to be Nothing else but such a Pressure from Bodies without so did they conclude Imagination and Mental Cogitation to be but the Reliques and Remainders of those Motions of Sense formerly Made and Conserved afterwards in the Brain like the Tremulous Vibrations of a Clock or Bell after the striking of the Hammer or the Rouling of the Waves after that the Wind is ceased Melting Fading and Decaying insensibly by degrees So that according to these Knowledge and Vnderstanding is Nothing but Fading and Decaying Sense and all our Volitions but Mechanick Motions caused from the Actions or Trusions of Bodies upon us Now though it be true that in Sensation there is alwayes a Passion Antecedent made upon the Body of the Sentient from without yet is not Sensation it self this very Passion but a Perception of that Passion much less can Mental Conceptions be said to be the Action of Bodies without and the meer Passion of the Thinker and least of all Volitions such there being plainly here something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In our own Power by means whereof we become a Principle of Actions accordingly deserving Commendation or Blame that is something of Self-Activity Again according to the Democritick and Epicurean Atheists all Knowledge and Vnderstanding is Really the same thing with Sense the Difference between these Two to some of them being only this That what is commonly called Sense is Primary and Original Knowledge and Knowledge but Secondary or Fading and Decaying Sense but to others that Sense is Caused by those more Vigorous Idols or Effluvia from Bodies intromitted through the Nerves but Vnderstanding and Knowledge by those more Weak and Thin Vmbratile and Evanid ones that penetrate the other smaller Pores of the Body so that both ways Vnderstanding and Knowledge will be but a Weaker Sense Now from this Doctrine of the Atheistick Atomists that all Conception and Cogitation of the Mind whatsoever is Nothing else but Sense and Passion from Bodies without this Absurdity first of all follows unavoidably that there cannot possibly be any Errour or False Judgment because it is certain that all Passion is True Passion and all Sense or Seeming and Appearance True Seeming and Appearance Wherefore though some Sense and Passion may be more Obscure than other yet can there be none False it self being the very Essence of Truth And thus Protagoras one of these Atheistick Atomists having First asserted That Knowledge is Nothing else but Sense did thereupon admit this as a Necessary Consequence That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every Opinion is True because it is Nothing but Seeming and Appearance and every Seeming and Appearance is truly such and because it is not possible for any one to Opine that which is Not or to Think otherwise than he Suffers Wherefore Epicurus being Sensible of this Inconvenience endeavoured to Salve this Phaenomenon of Errour and False Opinion or Judgement consistently with his own Principles after this manner That though all Knowledge be Sense and all Sense True yet may Errour arise notwithstanding Ex Animi Opinatu From the Opination of the Mind adding something of its own over and above to the Passion and Phansie of Sense But herein he shamefully contradicts himself For if the Mind in Judging and Opining can Superadd any thing of its own over and above to what it Suffers then is it not a meer Passive Thing but must needs have a Self-Active Power of its own and consequently will prove also Incorporeal because no Body can Act otherwise than it Suffers or is Made to Act by something else without it We conclude therefore That since there is such a thing as Errour or False Judgement all Cogitations of the Mind cannot be meer Passions but there must be something of Self-Activity in the Soul it Self by means whereof it can give its Assent to things not clearly Perceived and so Err. Again from this Atheistick Opinion That all Knowledge is Nothing else but Sense either Primary or Secundary it follows also That there is no Absolute Truth nor Falshood and that Knowledge is of a Private Nature Relative and Phantastical only or meer Seeming that is Nothing but Opinion because Sense is plainly Seeming Phantasie and Appearance a Private thing and Relative to the Sentient only And here also did Protagoras according to his wonted Freedom admit this Consequence That Knowledge being Sense there was no Absoluteness at all therein and That nothing was True otherwise than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this and to that man so Thinking That every man did but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Opine only his Own things That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every man was the Measure of Things and Truth to himself and Lastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That whatsoever Seemed to every one was True to him to whom it Seemed Neither could Democritus himself though a man of more discretion than Protagoras dissemble this Consequence from the same Principle asserted by him that Understanding is Phantastical and Knowledge but Opinion he owning it sometimes before he was aware as in these words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We ought to
Know Man according to this Rule That he is such a thing as hath Nothing to do with Absolute Truth and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We know nothing Absolutely concerning any thing and all our Knowledge is Opinion Agreeably to which he determined that mens Knowledge was diversified by the Temper of their Bodies and the Things without them And Aristotle Judiciously observing both these Doctrines That there is no Errour or False Judgment but every Opinion True and again That Nothing is Absolutely True but Relatively only to be Really and Fundamentally One and the same imputeth them both together to Democritus in these words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Democritus held that there was Nothing Absolutely True but because he thought Knowledge or Vnderstanding to be Sense therefore did he conclude that whatsoever Seemed according to Sense must of necessity be True not Absolutely but Relatively to whom it so Seemed These Gross Absurdities did the Atheistick Atomists plunge themselves into whilst they endeavoured to Salve the Phaenomenon of Cogitation Mind or Vnderstanding agreeably to their own Hypothesis And it is certain that all of them Democritus himself not excepted were but meer Blunderers in that Atomick Physiology which they so much pretended to and never rightly Understood the Same For as much as that with Equal Clearness teaches these Two things at once That Sense indeed is Phantastical and Relative to the Sentient But that there is a Higher Faculty of Vnderstanding and Reason in us which thus discovers the Phantastry of Sense and reaches to the Absoluteness of Truth or is the Criterion thereof But the Democritick and Epicurean Atheists will further Conclude that the only Things or Objects of the Mind are Singular Sensibles or Bodies Existing without it which therefore must needs be in Order of Nature before all Knowledge Mind and Vnderstanding whatsoever this being but a Phantastick Image or Representation of them From whence they Infer that the Corporeal World and these Sensible things could not possibly be Made by any Mind or Vnderstanding because Essentially Junior to them and the very Image and Creature of them Thus does Aristotle Observe concerning both Democritus and Protagoras that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suppose the only Things or Objects of the Mind to be Sensibles and that this was the Reason why they made Knowledge to be Sense and therefore Relative and Phantastical But we have already Proved that Mind and Vnderstanding is not the Phantastick Image of Sensibles or Bodies and that it is in its own Nature not Ectypal but Archetypal and Architectonical of all That it is Senior to the World and all Sensible Things it not looking abroad for its Objects any where without but containing them within it self The first Original Mind being an Absolutely perfect Being Comprehending it self and the Extent of its own Omnipotence or all Possibilities of things together with the Best Platform of the whole and poducing the same accordingly But it being plain that there are besides Singulars other Objects of the Mind Vniversal from whence it seems to follow that Sensibles are not the only Things some Modern Atheistick Wits have therefore invented this further device to maintain the Cause and carry the Business on That Vniversals are nothing else but Names or Words by which Singular Bodies are called and Consequently that in all Axioms and Propositions Sententious Affirmations and Negations in which the Predicate at least is Vniversal we do but Add or Substract Affirm or Deny Names of Singular Bodies and that Reason or Syllogism is Nothing but the Reckoning or Computing the Consequences of these Names or Words Neither do they want the Impudence to Affirm that besides those Passions or Phansies which we have from things by Sense we know Nâ—â—hing at all oâ— any thing but only the Names by which it is calâ—â—d Then which there cannot be a greater Sottishness or Madness For if Geometry were nothing but the Knowledge of Names by which Singular Bodies are called as it self could not deserve that Name of a Science so neither could its Truths be the same in Greek and in Latine and Geometricians in all the several distant Ages and Places of the World must be supposed to have had the same Singular Bodies before them of which they Affirmed and Denied those Vniversal Names In the Last place the Epicurean and Anaximandrian Atheists agreeably to the Premised Principles and the Tenor of their Hypothesis do both of them endeavour to Depreciate and Undervalue Knowledge or Vnderstanding as a thing which hath not any Higher Degree of Perfection or Entity in it than is in Dead and Sensless Matter It being according to them but a Passion from Singular Bodies Existing without and therefore both Junior and Inferior to them a Tumult raised in the Brain by Motions made upon it from the Objects of Sense That which Essentially includeth in it Dependence upon Something else at best but a Thin and Evanid Image of Sensibles or rather an Image of those Images of Sense a meer Whifling and Phantastick thing upon which account they conclude it not fit to be attributed to that which is the First Root and Sourse of all things which therefore is to them no other than Grave and Solid Sensless Matter the only Substantial Self-Existent Independent thing and Consequently the most Perfect and Divine Life and Vnderstanding Soul and Mind are to them no Simple and Primitive Natures but Secondary and Derivative or Syllables and Complexions of things which Sprung up afterwards from certain Combinations of Magnitudes Figures Sites and Motions or Contemperations of Qualities Contextures either of Similar or Dissimilar Atoms And as themselves are Juniors to Sensless Matter and Motion and to those Inanimate Elements Fire Water Air and Earth the First and most Real Productions of Nature and Chance so are their Effects and the Things that belong to them comparatively with those other Real Things of Nature but Slight Ludicrous and Vmbratil as Landskip in Picture compared with the Real Prospect of High Mountains and Low Valleys Winding or Meandrous Rivers Towering Steeples and the Shady Tops of Trees and Groves as they are accordingly commonly disparaged under those Names of Notional and Artificial And thus was the Sence of the Ancient Atheists represented by Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They say that the Greatest and most Excellent Things of all were made by Sensless Nature and Chance but all the Smaller and more Inconsiderable by Art Mind and Vnderstanding which taking from Nature those First and Greater Things as its Ground-work to Act upon doth Frame and Fabricate all the other Lesser Things which are therefore Commonly called Artificial And the Mind of these Atheists is there also further declared by that Philosopher after this manner The First most Real Solid and Substantial things in the whole World are those Elements Fire Water Air and Earth made by Senslâ—ss Nature and Chance without
Body and its Modifications but yet Generable out of it and Corruptible into it They concluding that as Light and Colours Heat and Cold c. according to those Phancies which we have of them are Real Qualities of Matter distinct from its Substance and Modifications so may Life Sense and Cogitation be in like manner Qualities of Matter also Generable and Corruptible But these Real Qualities of Body in the Sense declared are things that were long since justly exploded by the Ancient Atomists and expunged out of the Catalogue of Entities of whom Laertius hath Recorded that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quite cashier and banish Qualities out of their Philosophy they resolving all Corporeal Phaenomena and therefore those of Heat and Cold Light and Colours Fire and Flame c. intelligibly into nothing but the Different Modifications of Extended Substance viz. More or Less Magnitude of Parts Figure Site Motion or Rest or the Combinations of them and those different Phancies Caused in us by them Indeed there is no other Entity but Substance and its Modifications Wherefore the Democriticks and Epicureans did most shamefully contradict themselves when pretending to reject and explode all those Entities of Real Qualities themselves nevertheless made Life and Vnderstanding such Real Qualities of Matter Generable out of it and Corruptible again into it There is nothing in Body or Matter but Magnitude Figure Site and Motion or Rest now it is Mathematically Certain that these however Combin'd together can never possibly Compound or Make up Life or Cogitation which therefore cannot be an Accident of Matter but must of necessity be a Substantial thing We speak not here of that Life improperly so called which is in Vulgar Speech attributed to the Bodies of Men and Animals for it is plainly Aâ—cidental to a Body to be Vitally Vnited to a Soul or not Therefore is this Life of the Compound Corruptible and Destroyable without the Destruction of any Real Entity there being nothing Destroyed nor Lost to the Universe in the Deaths of Men and Animals as such but only a Disunion or Separation made of those Two Substances Soul and Body one from another But we speak here of the Original Life of the Soul it self that this is Substantial neither Generable nor Corruptible but only Creatable and Annihilable by the Deity And it is strange that any men should perswade themselves that that which Rules and Commands in the Bodies of Animals moving them up and down and hath Sense or Perception in it should not be as Substantial as that Stupid and Sensless Matter that is Ruled by it Neither can Matter which is also but a meer Passive thing Efficiently produce Soul any more than Soul Matter no Finite Imperfect Substance being able to produce another Substance out of Nothing Much less can such a Substance as hath a Lower Degree of Entity and Perfection in it Create that which hath a Higher There is a Scale or Ladder of Entities and Perfections in the Universe one above another and the Production of things cannot possibly be in Way of Ascent from Lower to Higher but must of necessity be in way of Descent from Higher to Lower Now to produce any One Higher Rank of Being from the Lower as Cogitation from Magnitude and Body is plainly to invert this Order in the Scale of the Universe from Downwards to Vpwards and therefore is it Atheistical and by the Same reason that One Higher Rank or Degree in this Scale is thus unnaturally Produced from a Lower may all the rest be so produced also Wherefore we have great reason to stand upon our Guard here and to defend this Post against the Atheists That no Life or Cogitation can either Materially or Efficiently result from Dead and Sensless Body or that Souls being all Substantial and Immaterial things can neither be Generated out of Matter nor Corrupted into the same but only Created or Annihilated by the Deity The Grand Objection against this Substantiality of Souls Sensitive as well as Rational is from that Consequence which will be from thence inferred of their Permanent Subsistence after Death their Perpetuity or Immortality This seeming very absurd that the Souls of Brutes also should be Immortal or subsist after the Deaths of the Respective Animals But especially to Two Sorts of Men First such as scarcely in good earnest believe their own Soul's Immortality and Secondly such Religionists as conclude that if Irrational or Sensitive Souls subsist after Death then must they needs go presently either into Heaven or Hell And R. Cartesius was so sensible of the Offensiveness of this Opinion that though he were fully convinced of the necessity of this Disjunction that either Brutes have nothing of Sense or Cogitation at all or else they must have some other Substance in them besides Matter he chose rather to make them meer Sensless Machins then to allow them Substantial Souls Wherein avoiding a Lesser Absurdity or Paradox he plainly plunged himself into a Greater scarcely any thing being more generally received than the Sense of Brutes Though in truth all those who deny the Substantiality of Sensitive Souls and will have Brutes to have nothing but Matter in them ought consequently according to Reason to do as Cartesius did deprive them of all Sense But on the contrary if it be evident from the Phaenomena that Brutes are not meer Sensless Machins or Automata and only like Clocks or Watches then ought not Popular Opinion and Vulgar Prejudice so far to prevail with us as to hinder our Assent to that which sound Reason and Philosophy clearly dictates that therefore they must have something more than Matter in them Neither ought we when we clearly conceive any thing to be true as this That Life and Cogitation cannot possibly rise out of Dead and Sensless Matter to abandon it or deny our Assent thereunto because we find it attended with some Difficulty not easily Extricable by us or cannot free all the Consequences thereof from some Inconvenience or Absurdity such as seems to be in the Permanent Subsistence of Brutish Souls For the giving an Account of which notwithstanding Plato and the Ancient Pythagoreans proposed this following Hypothesis That Souls as well Sensitive as Rational being all Substantial but not Self-Existent because there is but one Fountain and Principle of all things were therefore Produced or Caused by the Deity But this not in the Generations of the respective Animals it being indecorous that this Divine Miraculous Creative Power should constantly lacquey by and attend upon Natural Generations as also incongruous that Souls should be so much Juniors to Every Atom of Dust that is in the whole World but either all of them from Eternity according to those who Denied the Novity of the World or rather according to others who asserted the Cosmogonia in the first beginning of the World's Creation Wherefore it being also Natural to Souls as such to Actuate and Enliven some Body or to be as it
Apprehensions Nature has been very kind and indulgent to mankind herein that it hath thus brought us into the World without any Fetters or Shackles upon us Free from all Duty and Obligation Justice and Morality these being to them nothing but Restraints and Hinderances of True Liberty From all which it follows that Nature absolutely Dissociates and Segregates men from one another by reason of the Inconsistency of those Appetites of theirs that are all Carried out only to Private Good and Consequently that every man is by Nature in a State of War and Hostility against every man In the next place therefore these Atheistick Politicians further add that though this their State of Nature which is a Liberty from all Justice and Obligation and a Lawless Loose or Belluine Right to every thing be in it self Absolutely the Best yet nevertheless by reason of mens Imbecillity and the Equality of their Strengths and Inconsistency of their Appetites it proves by Accident the Worst this War with every one making mens Right or Liberty to every thing indeed a Right or Liberty to Nothing they having no security of their Lives much less of the Comfortable enjoyment of them For as it is not possible that all men should have Dominion which were indeed the most desirable thing according to these Principles so the Generality must needs be sensible of more Evil in such a State of Liberty with an Universal War against all than of Good Wherefore when men had been a good while Hewing and Slashing and Justling against one another they became at length all weary hereof and conceived it necessary by Art to help the Defect of their own Power here and to choose a Lesser Evil for the avoiding of a Greater that is to make a Voluntary Abatement of this their Infinite Right and to Submit to Terms of Equality with one another in order to a Sociable and Peaceable Cohabitation and not only So but also for the Security of all that others should observe such Rules as well as themselves to put their Necks under the Yoke of a Common Coercive Power whose Will being the Will of them all should be the very Rule and Law and Measure of Justice to them Here therefore these Atheistick Politicians as they first of all Slander Humane Nature and make a Villain of it so do they in the next place reproach Justice and Civil Sovereignty also making it to be nothing but an Ignoble and Bastardly Brat of Fear or else a Lesser Evil submitted to meerly out of Necessity for the avoiding of a Greater Evil that of War with every one by reason of mens Natural Imbecillity So that according to this Hypothesis Justice and Civil Government are plainly things not Good in themselves nor Desireable they being a Hinderance of Liberty and Nothing but Shackles and Fetters but by Accident only as Necessary Evils And thus do these Politicians themselves sometimes distinguish betwixt Good and Just that Bonum Amatur Per Se Justum Per Accidens Good is that which is Loved for it self but Just by Accident From whence it follows unavoidably that all men must of necessity be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnwillingly Just or not with a full and perfect but Mixt Will only Just being a thing that is not Sincerely Good but such as hath a great Dash or Dose of Evil blended with it And this was the Old Atheistick Generation of Justice and of a Body Politick Civil Society and Soveraignty For though a Modern Writer affirm this Hypothesis which he looks upon as the only true Scheme of Politicks to be a New Invention as the Circulation of the Blood and no older than the Book De Cive yet is it Certain that it was the commonly received Doctrine of the Atheistick Politicians and â—hilosophers before Plato's time who represents their Sense concerning the Original of Justice and Civil Society in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am to declare first what Justice is according to the sense of these Philosophers and from whence it was Generated They say therefore that by Nature Lawless Liberty and to do that which is now called Injustice and Injury to other men is Good but to Suffer it from others is Evil. But of the two there is more of Evil in suffering it than of Good in doing it Whereupon when men had Clashed a good while Doing and Suffering Injury the Greater part who by reason of their Imbecillity were not able to take the Former without the Latter at length Compounded the business amongst themselves and agreed together by Pacts and Covenants neither to Do nor Suffer Injury but to Submit to Rules of Equality and make Laws by Compact in order to their Peaceable Cohabitation they calling that which was required in those Laws by the Name of Just. And then is it added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this is according to these Philosophers the Generation and Essence of Justice as a certain Middle thing betwixt the Best and the Worst The Best to exercise a Lawless Liberty of doing whatsoeves one please to other men without Suffering any inconvenience from it And the Worst to Suffer Evil from others without being able to revenge it Justice therefore being a Middle thing betwixt both these is Loved not as that which is Good in it self but only by reason of mens Imbecillity and their Inability to do Injustice For as much as he that had sufficient Power would never enter into such Compacts and Submit to Equality and Subjection As for Example if a man had Gyges his Magical Ring that he could do whatsoever he listed and not be seen or taken Notice of by any such a one would certainly never Enter into Covenants nor Submit to Laws of Equality and Subjection Agreeably whereunto it hath been concluded also by some of these Old Atâ—eistick Philosophers that Justice was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not properly and directly ones own Good the Good of him that is Just but another mans Good partly of the Fellow Citizens but chiefly of the Ruler whose Vassal he is And it is well Known that after Plato's Time this Hypothesis concerning Justice that it was a meer Factitious thing and sprung only from mens Fear and Imbecillity as a Lesser Evil was much insisted on by Epicurus also But let us in the next place see how our Modern Atheistick Philosophers and Politicians will mannage and carry on this Hypothesis so as to Consociate men by Art into a Body Politick that are Naturally Dissociated from one another as also Mâ—ke Justice and Obligation Artificial when there is none in Nature First of all therefore these Artificial Justice-Makers City-Mâ—kâ—rs and Authority-Mâ—kers tell us that though men have an Infinite Right by Nâ—ture yet may they Alienate this Right or part thereof from themselves and either Simply Renounce it or Transfer the same upon some other Person by means whereof it will become Unlawful for themselves afterwards to make use thereof Thus late Writer Mâ—n
the Divine Art or Wisedom as the Manuary Opificer from the Architect Page 155 12. Two Imperfections of Nature in respect whereof it falls short of Humane Art First That though it act for Ends Artificially yet it self neither Intends those Ends nor Understands the Reason of what it doeth for which cause it cannot act Electively The Difference betwixt Spermatick Reasons and Knowledge That Nature doth but Ape or Mimick the Divine Art or Wisedom being it self not Master of that Reason according to which it acts but onely a Servant to it and Drudging Executioner thereof Page 156 13. Proved that there may be such a thing as acteth Artificially though it self do not comprehend that Art and Reason by which its Motions are Governed First from Musical Habits the Dancer resembles the Artificial Life of Nature Page 157 14. The same further Evinced from the Instincts of Brute Animals Directing them to act Rationally and Artificially in order to their own Good and the Good of the Vniverse without any Reason of their own These Instincts in Brutes but Passive Impresses of the Divine Wisedom and a kind of Fate upon them Page 158 15. The Second Imperfection of Nature that it Acteth without Animal Phancy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 con-Con-sense or Consciousness and hath no express Self-Perception and Self-Enjoyment ibid. 16. Whether this Energy of the Plastick Nature be to be called Cogitation or no Nothing but a Logomachy or Contention about Words Granted that what moves Matter Vitally must needs do it by some Energy of its own distinct from Local Motion but that there may be a Simple Vital Energy without that Duplicity which is in Synaesthesis or clear and express Consciousness Nevertheless that the Energy of Nature may be called a certain Drousie Unawakened or Astonished Cogitation Page 159 17. Severall Instances which render it probable that there may be a Vital Energy without Synaesthesis clear and express Con-sense or Consciousness Page 160 18. Wherefore the Plastick Nature acting neither Knowingly nor Phantastically must needs act Fatally Magically and Sympathetically The Divine Laws and Fate as to Matter not meer Cogitation in the Mind of God but an Energetick and Effectual Principle in it And this Plastick Nature the True and Proper Fate of Matter or of the Corporeal World What Magick is and that Nature which acteth Fatally acteth also Magically and Sympathetically P. 161 19. That Nature though it be the Divine Art or Fate yet for all that is neither a God nor Goddess but a Low and Imperfect Creature it acting Artificially and Rationally no otherwise than Compounded Forms of Letters when Printing Coherent Philosophick Sense nor for Ends than a Saw or Hatchet in the hands of a skillfull Mechanick The Plastick and Vegetative Life of Nature the Lowest of all Lives and Inferiour to the Sensitive A Higher Providence than that of the Plastick Nature governing the Corporeal World it self ibid. 20. Notwithstanding which forasmuch as the Plastick Nature is a Life it must needs be Incorporeal One and the self same thing having in it an entire Model and Platform of the Whole and acting upon several Distant parts of Matter cannot be a Body And though Aristotle himself do no where declare this Nature to be either Corporeal or Incorporeal which he neither clearly doth concerning the Rational Soul and his Followers commonly take it to be Corporeal yet according to the Genuine Principles of that Philosophy must it needs be otherwise Page 165 21. The Plastick Nature being Incorporeal must either be a Lower Power lodged in Souls which are also Conscious Sensitive or Rational or else a distinct Substantial Life by it Self and Inferiour Soul That the Platonists affirm Both with Aristotle's agreeable Determination That Nature is either Part of a Soul or not without Soul ibid. 22. The Plastick Nature as to the Bodies of Animals a Part or Lower Power of their respective Souls That the Phaenomena prove a Plastick Nature or Archeus in Animals to make which a distinct thing from the Soul would be to Multiply Entities without Necessity The Soul endued with a Plastick Nature the Chief Formatrix of its own Body the contribution of other Causes not excluded Page 166 23. That besides the Plastick in Particular Animals Forming them as so many Little Worlds there is a General Plastick or Artificial Nature in the Whole Corporeal Vniverse which likewise according to Aristotle is either a Part and Lower Power of a Conscious Mundane Soul or else something depending thereon Page 167 24. That no less according to Aristotle than Plato and Socrates Our selves partake of Life from the Life of the Universe as well as we do of Heat and Cold from the Heat and Cold of the Vniverse From whence it appears that Aristotle also held the World's Animation which is further Vndeniably proved An Answer to Two the most considerable Places in that Philosopher objected to the contrary That Aristotle's First Immoveable Mover was no Soul but a Perfect Intellect abstract from Matter which he supposed to move onely as a Final Cause or as Being Loved and besides this a Mundane Soul and Plastick Nature to move the Heavens Efficiently Neither Aristotle's Nature nor Mundane Soul the Supreme Deity However though there be no such Mundane Soul as both Plato and Aristotle conceived yet may there be notwithstanding a Plastick or Artificial Nature depending upon a Higher Intellectual Principle Page 168 25. No Impossibility of other Particular Plasticks and though it be not reasonable to think every Plant Herb and Pile of Grass to have a Plastick or Vegetative Soul of its own nor the Earth to be an Animal yet may there possibly be one Plastick Artificial Nature presiding over the Whole Terraqueous Globe by which Vegetables may be severally organized and framed and all things performed which transcend the Power of Fortuitous Mechanism Page 171 26. Our Second Undertaking which was to Show How grosly those Atheists who acknowledge this Artificial Plastick Nature without Animality Misunderstand it and Abuse the Notion to make a Counterfeit God Almighty or Numen of it to the exclusion of the True Deity First In their Supposing That to be the First and Highest Principle of the Vniverse which is the Last and Lowest of all Lives a thing as Essentially Derivative from and Dependent upon a Higher Intellectual Principle as the Echo on the Original Voice Secondly In their making Sense and Reason in Animals to emerge out of a Sensless Life of Nature by the meer Modification and Organization of Matter That no Duplication of Corporeal Organs can ever make One Single Inconscious Life to advance into Redoubled Consciousness and Self-Enjoyment Thirdly In attributing some of them Perfect Knowledge and Understanding to this Life of Nature which yet themselves suppose to be devoid of all Animal Sense and Consciousness Lastly In making this Plastick Life of Nature to be meerly Corporeal The Hylozoïsts contending That it is but an Inadequate Conception of Body as the onely
Aether Animated or the subtle Fiery Substance that pervadeth all things the God of the Heracliticks and Stoicks or the Sun the Cleanthaean God Page 455 456 Though Macrobius refer so many of the Pagan Gods to the Sun and doubtless himself lookt upon it as a Great God yet does he deny it to be Omnipotentissimum Deum the Most Omnipotent God of all he asserting a Trinity of Divine Hypostases Superiour to it in the Platonick way Page 456 457 That the Persians themselves the most Notorious Sun-worshippers did notwithstanding acknowledge a Deity Superiour to it and the Maker thereof proved from Eubulus As also that the Persians Countrey-Jupiter was not the Sun confirmed from Herodotus Xenophon Plutarch and Curtius Cyrus his Lord God of Heaven who commanded him to build him a house at Jerusalem the same with the God of the Jews Page 458 That as besides the Scythians the Ethiopians in Strabo and other Barbarian Nations anciently acknowledged One Sovereign Deity so is this the Belief of the generality of the Pagan World to this very day Page 458 459 XXVIII Besides Themistius and Symmachus asserting One and the same Thing to be worshipped in all Religions though after different ways and that God Almighty was not displeased with this Variety of his Worship Plutarch's Memorable Testimony That as the same Sun Moon and Stars are common to all so were the same Gods And that not onely the Egyptians but also all other Pagan Nations worshipped One Reason and Providence ordering all together with its Inferiour Subservient Powers and Ministers though with different Rites and Symbols Page 459 460 Titus Livius also of the same Perswasion That the Same Immortal Gods were Worshipped every where namely One Supreme and his Inferiour Ministers however the Diversity of Rites made them seem Different Page 460 Two Egyptian Philosophers Heraiscus and Asclepiades professedly insisting upon the same thing not onely as to the Egyptians but also the other Pagan Nations the Latter of them Asclepiades having written a Book Entitled The Symphony or Harmony of all Theologies or Religions To wit in these Two Fundamentalls That there is One Supreme God and besides him Other Inferiour Gods his Subservient Ministers to be worshipped From whence Symmachus and other Pagans concluded That the Differences of Religion were not to be scrupulously stood upon but every man ought to worship God according to the Law and Religion of his own Country The Pagans Sense thus declared by Stobaeus That the Multitude of Gods is the work of the Demiurgus made by Him together with the World Page 461 XXIX That the Pagan Theists must needs acknowledge One Supreme Deity further Evident from hence Because they generally believed the whole World to be One Animal Actuated and Governed by One Soul To deny the Worlds Animation and to be an Atheist all one in the sense of the Ancient Pagans Against Gassendus that Epicurus denyed the Worlds Animation upon no other account but onely because he denyed a Providential Deity This whole Animated World or the Soul thereof to the Stoicks and others The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First and Highest God Page 462 Other Pagan Theologers who though asserting likewise the Worlds Animation and a Mundane Soul yet would not allow this to be the Supreme Deity they conceiving the First and Highest God to be no Soul but an Abstract and Immoveable Mind Superiour to it And to these the Animated World and Mundane Soul but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Second God Page 463 But the Generality of those who went Higher than the Soul of the World acknowledged also a Principle Superior to Mind or Intellect called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The One and The Good and so asserted a Trinity of Divine Hypostases Subordinate Monad Mind and Soul So that the Animated World or Soul thereof was to some of these but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Third God ibid. The Pagans whether holding Soul or Mind or Monad to be the Highest acknowledged onely One in each of those severall Kinds as the Head of all and so always reduced the Multiplicity of things to a Unity or under a Monarchy Page 464 Observed That to the Pagan Theologers Vniversally the World was no Dead Thing or meer Machin and Automaton but had Life or Soul diffused thorough it all Those being taxed by Aristotle as Atheists who made the world to consist of nothing but Monads or Atoms Dead and Inanimate Nor was it quite Cut off from the Supreme Deity how much soever Elevated above the same the Forementioned Trinity of Monad Mind and Soul being supposed to be most intimately united together and indeed all but One Entire Divinity Displayed in the World and Supporting the same Page 464 465 XXX The Sense of the Hebrews in this Controversy That according to Philo the Pagan Polytheism consisted not in worshipping Many Independent Gods and Partial Creators of the World but besides the One Supreme other Created Beings Superior to men Page 465 466 That the same also was the Sense of Flavius Josephus according to whom This the Doctrine of Abraham That the Supreme God was alone to be Religiously Worshipped and no Created thing with him Aristaeus his Assertion in Josephus That the Jews and Greeks worshipped one and the same Supreme God called by the Greeks Zene as giving Life to all Page 466 467 The Latter Rabbinical Writers generally of this Perswasion That the Pagans acknowledging One Supreme and Universal Numen worshipped all their Other Gods as his Ministers or as Mediators and Intercessors betwixt him and them And this Condemned by them for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strange Worship or Idolatry The first Commandment thus interpreted by Maimonides and Baal Ikkarim Thou shalt not set up besides me any Inferiour Gods as Mediators nor Religiously Worship my Ministers or Attendants The Miscarriage of Solomon and other Kings of Israel and Judah This That believing the Existence of the One Supreme God they thought it was for his Honour that his Ministers also should be worshipped Abravanel his Ten Species of Idolatry all of them but so Many several Modes of Creature-Worship and no mention amongst them made of many Independent Gods Page 467 c. Certain Places of Scripture also Interpreted by Rabbinical Writers to this purpose That the Pagan Nations generally acknowledged One Sovereign Numen Page 469 470 The Jews though agreeing with the Greeks and other Pagans in this That the Stars were all Animated nevertheless denyed them any Religious Worship Page 470 471 XXXI This same thing plainly confirmed from the New Testament That the Gentiles or Pagans however Polytheists and Idolaters were not Vnacquainted with the True God First from the Epistle to the Romans where that which is Knowable of God is said to have been manifest amongst the Pagans and they to have Known God though they did not Glorify him as God but hold the Truth in Unrighteousness by reason of their Polytheism and Idolatry
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
Incomprehensible from whence they infer him to be a Non-Entity Here perhaps it may be Granted in a right Sense that whatsoever is altogether Unconceivable is either in It self or at least to Vs Nothing How that of Protagoras That Every man is the measure of all things to himself in his Sense false Whatsoever any man 's shallow understanding cannot clearly comprehend not therefore to be presently expunged out of the Catalogue of Beings Nevertheless according to Aristotle the Soul and Mind in a manner All things This a Crystalline Globe or Notional World that hath some Image in it of whatsoever is contained in the Real Globe of Being Page 638 But this Absolutely False That whatsoever cannot be fully Comprehended by us is therefore utterly Unconceivable and consequently Nothing For we cannot fully Comprehend Our selves nor have such an Adequate Conception of any Substance as perfectly to Master and Conquer the same That of the Scepticks so far True That there is Something Incomprehensible in the Essence of Every thing even of Body it self Truth Bigger then our Minds Proper to God Almighty who alone is wise perfectly to Comprehend the Essences of all things But it follows not from hence that therefore we have no Idea nor Conception at all of any thing We may have a Notion or Idea of a Perfect Being though we cannot fully Comprehend the same by Our Imperfect Minds as we may See and Touch a Mountain though we cannot Enclasp it all round within our Arms. This therefore a False Theorem of the Atheists That whatsoever cannot be fully Comprehended by Mens Imperfect Vnderstandings is an Absolute Non-Entity Page 638 639 Though God more Incomprehensible then other Things because of his Transcendent Perfection yet hath he also more of Conceptibility as the Sun though dazling our Sight yet hath more of Visibility also then any other Object The Dark Incomprehensibility of the Deity like the Azure Obscurity of the Transparent Aether not any thing Absolutely in it self but onely Relative to us Page 639 640 This Incomprehensibility of the Deity so far from being an Argument against its Existence that certain on the Contrary were there Nothing Incomprehensible to our Imperfect Minds there could be no God Every thing Apprehended by some Internal Congruity The Scantness and Imperfection of our Narrow Understandings must needs make them Asymmetral or Incommensurate to what Absolutely Perfect Page 640 Nature it self Intimates That there is Something Vastly Bigger then our Mind and Thoughts by those Passions Implanted in us of Devout Veneration Adoration and Admiration with Ecstasie and Pleasing Horrour That of the Deity which cannot enter into the Narrow Vessels of our Minds must be otherwise apprehended by their being Plunged into it or Swallowed up and Lost in it We have a Notion or Conception of a Perfect Being though we cannot fully Comprehend the same because our selves being Imperfect must needs be Incommensurate thereunto Thus no Reason at all in the Second Atheistick Pretence against the Idea of God and his Existence from his Confessed Incomprehensibility ibid. The Third follows That Infinity supposed to be Essentiall to the Deity is a thing Perfectly Unconceivable and therefore an Impossibility and Non-Entity Some Passages of a Modern Writer to this purpose The meaning of them That there is Nothing of Philosophick Truth in the Idea or Attributes of God nor any other Sense in the words then onely to signify the Veneration and Astonishment of mens own Minds That the word Infinite signifies Nothing in the Thing it self so called but onely the Inability of our Understandings and Admiration And since God by Theists is denied to be Finite but cannot be Infinite therefore an Unconceivable Nothing Thus another Learned Well-willer to Atheism That we have no Idea of Infinite and therefore not of God Which in the Language of Atheists all one as to say that He is a Non-Entity Page 640 641 Answer This Argument That there can be nothing Infinite and therefore no God proper to the Modern and Neoterick Atheists onely but Repugnant to the Sense of the Ancients Anaximander's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infinite Matter though Melissus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the True Deity Formerly both Theists and Atheists agreed in this That there must be Something or other Infinite either an Infinite Mind or Infinite Matter The ancient Atheists also asserted a Numericall Infinity of Worlds Thus do Atheists Confute or Contradict Atheists Page 641 642 That the Modern Atheists do no less Contradict Plain Reason also and their very Selves then they do their Predecessours when they would disprove a God from hence Because there can be Nothing Infinite For First Certain that there was something or other Infinite in Duration or Eternal without Beginning Because If there had been once Nothing there could never have been Any thing But hardly any Atheists can be so Sottish as in good earnest to think there was once Nothing at all but afterward Sensless Matter Happened to Be. Notorious Impudence in them who assert the Eternity of Matter to make this an Argument against the Existence of a God Because Infinite Duration without Beginning an Impossibility Page 642 643 A Concession to the Atheists of these Two Things That we neither have a Phantasm of any Infinite because there was never any in Sense and that Infinity is not fully Comprehensible by Finite Understandings neither But since Mathematically Certain That there was something Infinite in Duration Demonstrated from hence against Atheists That there is Something Really Existing which we have neither any Phantasm of nor yet can fully Comprehend in our Minds ibid. Further Granted That as for Infinity of Number Magnitude and Time without beginning as we have no Phantasm nor full Comprehension of them so have we neither any Intelligible Idea Notion or Conception From whence it may be Concluded That they are Non-Entities Number Infinite in Aristotle onely in a Negative Sense because we can never come to an End thereof by Addition For which very Reason also there cannot possibly be any Number Positively Infinite since One or More may always be Added No Magnitude so Great neither but that a Greater may be Supposed By Infinite Space to be Vnderstood Nothing but a Possibility of more and more Body further and further Infinitely by Divine Power or that the World could never be made so Great as that God was not able to make it still Greater This Potential Infinity or Indefinity of Body seems to be mistaken for an Actual Infinity of Space Lastly no Infinity of Time Past because then there must needs be Time Past which never was Present An Argument of a Modern Writer Reason therefore Concludes neither the World nor Time to have been Infinite in Past Duration Page 643 644 Here will the Atheist think he has got a Great Advantage for disproving the Existence of a God Thâ—y who thus take away the Eternity of the World taking away also the Eternity of a God As
Demonstrable of a Perfect Being as the Properties of a Triangle or a Square and therefore can neither be Contradictious to it nor one another Page 652 Nay the Genuine Attributes of the Deity not onely not Contradictious but also all Necessarily Connected together ibid. In Truth All the Attributes of the Deity but so many Partial and Inadequate Conceptions of One and the Same Perfect Being taken into our Minds as it were by Piece-meal ibid. The Idea of God neither Fictitious nor Factitious Nothing Arbitrarious in it but a most Natural and Simple Idea to which not the Least can be Added nor any thing Detracted from it Nevertheless may there be different Apprehensions concerning God every one that hath a Notion of a Perfect Being not Vnderstanding all that Belongeth to it no more then of a Triangle or of a Sphear ibid. 653 Concluded therefore That the Attributes of God No Confounded Non-sense of Religiously Astonished Minds huddling up together all Imaginable Attributes of Honour Courtship and Complement but the Attributes of Necessary Philosophick Truth and such as do not onely speak the Devotion of mens Hearts but also declare the Reall Nature of the thing Here the Wit of a Modern Atheistick Writer ill placed Though no doubts but some either out of Superstition or Ignorance may Attribute such things to the Deity as are Incongruous to its Nature Thus the Fourth Atheistick Pretence against the Idea of God Confuted Page 653 654 In the next place The Atheists think themselves concerned to give an Account of this Unquestionable Phaenomenon the General Persuasion of the Existence of a God in the Minds of men and their Propensity to Religion whence this should come if there were no Reall Object for it in Nature And this they would doe by Imputing it partly to the Confounded Nonsense of Astonished Minds and partly to the Imposture of Politicians Or else to these Three Things To Mens Fear and to their Ignorance of Causes and to the Fiction of Law-Makers and Civil Sovereigns Page 654 The First of these Atheistick Origins of Religion That Mankind by reason of their Natural Imbecillity are in continual Solicitude and Fear concerning Future Events and their Good and Evil Fortune And this Passion of Fear raises up in them for an Object to it self a most Affrightfull Phantasm of An Invisible Understanding Being Omnipotent c. They afterwards Standing in awe of this their own Imagination and Tremblingly Worshipping the Creature of their own Fear and Phancy Page 654 The Second Atheistick Origin of Theism and Religion That Men having a Naturall Curiosity to Enquire into the Causes of things wheresoever they can discover no Visible and Naturall Causes are prone to Feign Causes Invisible and Supernatural As Anaxagoras said never to have betaken himself to a God but onely when he was at a loss for Necessary Materiall Causes Wherefore no wonder if the Generality of Mankind being Ignorant of the Causes of all or most Things have betaken themselves to a God as to a Refuge and Sanctuary for their Ignorance Page 654 655 These two Accounts of the Phaenomenon of Religion from mens Fear and Solicitude and from their Ignorance of Causes and Curiosity Joyned together by a Modern Writer As if the Deity were but a Mormo or Bugbear raised up by mens Fear in the Darkness of their Ignorance of Causes The Opinion of other Ghosts and Spirits also deduced from the same Originall Mens taking things Casuall for Prognosticks and being so addicted to Omens Portents Prophecies c. From a Phantastick and Timorous Supposition That the things of the World are not disposed of by Nature but by some Understanding Person Page 655 But lest these Two Accounts of the Phaenomenon of Religion should prove Insufficient the Atheists superadde a Third Imputing it also to the Fiction and Imposture of Civill Soveraigns who perceiving an advantage to be made from hence for the better keeping men in Subjection have thereupon Dextrously laid hold of mens Fear and Ignorance and Cherished those Seeds of Religion in them from the Infirmities of their Nature Confirming their Belief of Ghosts and Spirits Miracles Prodigies and Oracles by Tales publickly Allowed and Recommended And that Religion might be every way Obsequious to their Designs have perswaded the People that Themselves were but the Interpreters of the Gods from whom they Received their Laws Religion an Engin of State to keep men busily Employed Entertain their Minds render them Tame and Gentle apt for Subjection and Society Page 655 656 All this not the Invention of Modern Atheists But an Old Atheistick Cabbal That the Gods made by Fear Lucretius That the Causes of Religion Terrour of Mind and Darkness and that the Empire of the Gods owes all its Being to mens Ignorance of Causes as also that the Opinion of Ghosts proceeded from mens not knowing how to distinguish their Dreams other Frightfull Phancies from Sensations Page 656 657 An Old Atheistick Surmize also That Religion a Political Invention Thus Cicero The Atheists in Plato That the Gods are not by Nature but by Art and Laws onely Critias one of the Thirty Tyrants of Athens his Poem to this purpose Page 657 658 That the Folly and Falsness of these Three Atheistick Pretences for the Origin of Religion will be fully Manifested First As to that of Fear and Phancy Such an Excess of Fear as makes any one constantly Believe the Existence of that for which no manner of Ground neither in Sense nor Reason highly tending also to his own Disquiet Nothing less then Distraction Wherefore the generality of mankind here affirmed by Atheists to be Frighted out of their Wits and Disstempered in their brains onely a few of themselves who have escaped this Panick Terrour remaining Sober or in their Right Senses The Sobriety of Atheists nothing but Dull Stupidity and Dead Incredulity they Believing onely what they can See or Feel Page 658 True That there is a Religious Fear Consequent upon the Belief of a God as also that the Sense of a Deity is often awakened in mens Minds by their Fears and Dangers But Religion no Creature of Fear None lesse Solicitous about their Good and Evill Fortune then the Pious and Vertuous who place not their Chief Happiness in things Aliene but onely in the Right Vse of their own Will Whereas the Good of Atheists wholly in things Obnoxious to Fortune The Timorous Complexion of Atheists from building all their Politicks and Justice upon the Foundation of Fear Page 658 659 The Atheists Grand Errour here That the Deity according to the generall Sense of Mankind Nothing but a Terriculum a Formidable Hurtfull and Undesirable thing Whereas men every where agree in that Divine Attribute of Goodness and Benignity ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the worst Sense taken by none but a few Ill-natured Men painting out the Deity according to their own Likeness This condemned by Aristotle in the Poets he calling them therefore Liars by
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
by perfect Art and Wisedome This Atheistick Fanaticism Page 675 676 No more Possible That Dead and Sensless Matter Fortuitously Moved should at length be Taught and Necessitated by it self to produce this Artificial System of the World then that a dozen or more Persons unskilled in Musick and striking the Strings as it Happened should at length be Taught and Necessitated to fall into Exquisite Harmony Or that the Letters in the Writings of Plato and Aristotle though having so much Philosophick Sense should have been all Scribbled at randome More Philosophy in the Great Volume of the World then in all Aristotle's and Plato's Works and more of Harmony then in any Artificial Composition of Vocall Musick That the Divine Art and Wisedom hath printed such a Signature of it self upon the Matter of the Whole World as Fortune and Chance could never Counterfeit Page 676 677 But in the next place the Atheists will for all this undertake to Demonstrate That things could not Possibly be made by any Intending Cause for Ends and Uses as Eyes for Seeing Ears for Hearing from hence Because things were all in Order of Time as well as Nature before their Uses This Argument seriously propounded by Lucretius in this manner If Eyes were made for the Use of Seeing then of necessity must Seeing have been before Eyes But there was no Seeing before Eyes Therefore could not Eyes be made for the sake of Seeing Page 677 678 Evident that the Logick of these Atheists differs from that of all other Mortalls according to which the End for which any thing is designedly made is onely in Intention First but in Execution Last True that Men are Commonly excited from Experience of things and Sense of their Wants to Excogitate Means and Remedies but it doth not therefore follow that the Maker of the World could not have a Preventive Knowledge of whatsoever would be Usefull for Animals and so make them Bodies Intentionally for those Vses That Argument ought to be thus framed Whatsoever is made Intentionally for any End as the Eye for that of Seeing that End must needs be in the Knowledge and Intention of the Maker before the Actual Existence of that which is made for it But there could be no Knowledge of Seeing before there were Eyes Therefore Eyes could not be made Intentionally for the sake of Seeing Page 678 This the True Scope of the Premised Atheistick Argument however disguised by them in the first Propounding The Ground thereof Because they take it for granted That all Knowledge is derived from Sense or from the Things Known Pre-Existing without the Knower And here does Lucretius Triumph The Controversy therefore at last resolved into this Whether all Knowledge be in its own Nature Junior to Things for if so it must be Granted that the World could not be Made by any Antecedent Knowledge But this afterwards fully Confuted and Proved That Knowledge is not in its own Nature Ectypall but Archetypall and that Knowledge was Older then the World and the Maker thereof Page 679 But Atheists will Except against the Proving of a God from the Regular and Artificiall frame of things That it is unreasonable to think there should be no Cause in Nature for the Common Phaenomena thereof but a God thus Introduced to salve them Which also to suppose the world Bungled and Botcht up That Nature is the Cause of Naturall things Which Nature doth not Intend nor Act for Ends. Wherefore the Opinion of Finall Causality for things in Nature but an Idolum Specûs Therefore rightly banished by Democritus out of Physiology Page 679 680 The Answer Two Extreams here to be avoided One of the Atomick Atheists who derive all things from the Fortuitous Motion of Sensless Matter Another of Bigoticall Religionists who will have God to doe all things Himself Immediately without any Nature The Middle betwixt both That there is not onely a Mechanicall and Fortuitous but also an Artificiall Nature Subservient to the Deity as the Manuary Opificer and Drudging Executioner thereof True that some Philosophers have absurdly attributed their own Properties or Animal Idiopathies to Inanimate Bodies Nevertheless this no Idol of the Cave or Den to suppose the System of the World to have been framed by an Understanding Being according to whose Direction Nature though not it self Intending Acteth Balbus his Description of this Artificiall Nature in Cicero That there could be no Mind in us were there none in the Universe That of Aristotle True That there is more of Art in some things of Nature then in any thing Made by Men. Now the Causes of Artificiall things as a House or Clock cannot be declared without Intention for Ends. This Excellently pursued by Aristotle No more can the Things of Nature be rightly Vnderstood or the Causes of them fully Assigned meerly from Matter and Motion without Intention or Mind They who banish Finall or Mentall Causality from Philosophy look upon the Things of Nature with no other Eyes then Oxen and Horses Some pitifull Attempts of the Ancient Atheists to salve the Phaenomena of Animals without Mentall Causality Democritus and Epicurus so cautious as never to pretend to give an Account of the Formation of the Foetus Aristotle's Judgement here to be Preferred before that of Democritus Page 680 683 But nothing more Strange then that these Atheists should be justified in this their Ignorance by Professed Theists and Christians who Atomizing likewise in their Physiology contend that this whole Mundane System resulted onely from the Necessary and Unguided Motion of Matter either Turned Round in a Vortex or Jumbled in a Chaos without the Direction of any Mind These Mechanick Theists more Immodest then the Atomick Atheists themselves they supposing these their Atoms though Fortuitously moved yet never to have produced any Inept System or Incongruous Forms but from the very first all along to have Ranged themselves so Orderly as that they could not have done it better had they been directed by a Perfect Mind They quite take away that Argument for a God from the Phaenomena and that Artificiall Frame of things leaving onely some Metaphysicall Arguments which though never so good yet by reason of their Subtlety cannot doe so much Execution The Atheists Gratified to see the Cause of Theism thus betrayed by its professed Friends and the Grand Argument for the same totally Slurred by them Page 683 684 As this Great Insensibility of Mind to look upon the Things of Nature with no other Eyes then Brute Animals do so are there Sundry Phaenomena partly Above the Mechanick Powers and partly Contrary to the same which therefore can never be Salved without Mentall and Finall Causality As in Animals the Motion of the Diaphragma in Respiration the Systole and Diastole of the Heart Being a Muscular Constriction and Relaxation To which might be added others in the Macrocosm as the Intersection of the Planes of the Equator and Ecliptick or the Earth's Diurnall Motion upon an Axis not
Parallell with that of its Annual Cartesius his Confession that according to Mechanick Principles these should continually come nearer and nearer together which since they have not done Finall or Mentall Causality here to be acknowledged and because it was Best it should be so But the Greatest Phaenomenon of this kind the Formation and Organization of Animals which these Mechanists never able to give any Account of Of that Posthumous Piece of Cartesius De la Formation Du Foetus Page 684 685 Pretended That to assign Finall Causes is to presume our selves to be as Wise as God Almighty or to be Privy to his Counsells But the Question not Whether we can always reach to the Ends of God Almighty or know what is Absolutely Best in every Case and accordingly Conclude things therefore to be so but Whether any thing in the World be made for Ends otherwise then would have resulted from the Fortuitous Motion of Matter No Presumption nor Intrusion into the Secrets of God Almighty to say that Eyes were made by him Intentionally for the sake of Seeing Anaxagoras his Absurd Aphorism That Man was therefore the most Solert of all Animals because he Chanced to have Hands Far more Reasonable to think as Aristotle concludeth That because Man was the wisest of all Animals therefore he had Hands given him More proper to give Pipes to one that hath Musicall skill then upon him that hath Pipes to bestow Musicall skill Page 685 In the Last place The Mechanick Theists Pretend and that with some more plausibility That it is below the Dignity of God Almighty to perform all those Mean and Triviall Offices of Nature Himself Immediatly This Answered again That though the Divine Wisedom it Self Contrived the System of the whole for Ends yet is there an Artificial Nature under him as his Inferiour Minister and Executioner Proclus his Description hereof This Nature to Proclus a God or Goddess but onely as the Bodies of the Animated Stars were called Gods because the Statues of the Gods Page 685 686 That we cannot otherwise Conclude concerning these Mechanick Theists who derive all things in the Mundane System from the Necessary Motions of Sensless Matter without the Direction of any Mind or God but that they are Imperfect Theists or have a certain Tang of the Atheistick Enthusiasm the Spirit of Infidelity hanging about them Page 687 But these Mechanick Theists Counterbalanc'd by another sort of Atheists not Fortuitous nor Mechanicall namely the Hylozoists who acknowledge the works of Nature to be the works of Understanding and deride Democritus his Rough and Hooky Atoms devoid of Life they attributing Life to all Matter as such and concluding the Vulgar Notion of a God to be but an Inadequate Conception of Matter its Energetick Nature being taken alone by it self as a Compleat Substance These Hylozoists never able to satisfy that Phaenomenon of the One Agreeing and Conspiring Harmony throughout the whole Universe every Atom of Matter according to them being a Distinct Percipient and these Vnable to confer Notions with One another Page 687 Nor can the other Cosmo-Plastick Atheists to whom the whole World but one Huge Plant or Vegetable Endued with a Spermatick Artificiall Nature Orderly disposing the whole without Sense or Understanding doe any thing towards the Salving of This or any other Phaenomena it being Impossible That there should be any such Regular Nature otherwise then as Derived from and Depending on a Perfect Mind ibid. Besides these Three Phaenomena of Cogitation Motion and the Artificial Frame of things with the Conspiring Harmony of the Whole no way Salvable by Atheists Here further Added That those who asserted the Novity of the World could not possibly give an Account neither of the First Beginning of Men and other Animals not now Generated out of Putrefaction Aristotle sometimes doubtfull and staggering concerning the World's Eternity Men and all other Animals not produced at first by Chance either as Worms out of Putrefaction or out of Eggs or Wombs growing out of the Earth Because no Reason to be given why Chance should not as well produce the same out of the Earth still Epicurus his vain Pretence that the Earth as a Child-bearing Woman was now grown Effete and Barren Moreover Men and Animals whether first Generated out of Putrefaction or excluded out of Wombs or Egge-shells supposed by these Atheists themselves to have been produced in a Tender Infant-like State so that they could neither supply themselves with nourishment nor defend themselves from harms A Dream of Epicurus That the Earth sent forth streams of Milk after those her New-born Infants and Nurslings Confuted by Critolaus in Philo. Another Precarious Supposition or Figment of Epicurus That then no immoderate Heats nor Colds nor any blustering Winds Anaximander's way of Salving this Difficulty That Men were first generated and nourished in the bellies of Fishes till able to shift for themselves and then disgorged upon dry land Atheists swallow any thing rather then a God Page 688 689 Wherefore here being Dignus Vindice Nodus a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reasonably introduced in the Mosaick Cabbala to solve the same It appearing from all Circumstances put together that this whole Phaenomenon surpasses not onely the Mechanick but also the Plastick Powers there being much of Discretion therein However not denied but that the Ministery of Spirits Created before Man and other Terrestrial Animals might be here made use of As in Plato after the Creation of Immortal Souls by the Supreme God the Framing of Mortal Bodies is committed to Junior Gods Page 689 690 Furthermore Atheists no more able to Salve that ordinary Phaenomenon of the Conservation of Species by the Difference of Sexes and a due Proportion of Number kept up between Males and Females Here a Providence also Superiour as well to the Plastick as Mechanick Nature ibid. Lastly Other Phaenomena as Real though not Physical which Atheists cannot possibly Salve and therefore do commonly Deny as of Natural Justice or Honesty and Obligation the Foundation of Politicks and the Mathematicks of Religion And of Liberty of Will not onely That of Fortuitous Self-determination when an equal Eligibility of Objects but also That which makes men deserve Commendation and Blame These not commonly distinguished as they Ought Epicurus his endeavour to Salve Liberty of Will from Atoms Declining Vncertainly from the Perpendicular meer Madness and Frenzy Page 690 691 And now have we already Preventively Confuted the Third Atheistick Pretence to Salve the Phaenomenon of Theism from the Fiction and Imposture of Politicians we having proved That Philosophy and the true Knowledg of Causes inferre the Existence of a God Nevertheless this to be here further Answered Page 691 That States-men and Politicians could not have made such use of Religion as sometimes they have done had it been a meer Cheat and Figment of their own Civil Sovereigns in all the distant places of the World could not have so universally conspired in this one
be a Modification of Sensless Matter or Result from Figures Sites Motions and Magnitudes Humane Souls Substantiall and therefore according to this Doctrine must have been Never Made whereas Atheists stifly deny both their Prae and Post-Existence Those Pagan Theists who held the Eternity of Humane Minds supposed them notwithstanding to have Depended upon the Deity as their Cause Before Proved That there can be but One Understanding Being Self-Existent If Humane Souls Depend upon the Deity as their Cause then Doubtless Matter also Page 749 750 A Common but Great Mistake That no Pagan Theist ever acknowledged any Creative Power out of Nothing or else That God was the Cause of any Substance Plato's Definition of Effective Power in General and his Affirmation That the Divine Efficiency is that whereby things are Made after they had Not been Certain That he did not understand this of the Production of Souls out of Matter he supposing them to be Before Matter and therefore Made by God out of Nothing Prae-Existing All Philosophers who held the Immortality and Incorporeity of the Soul asserted it to have been Caused by God either in Time or from Eternity Plutarch's Singularity here Vnquestionable That the Platonists supposed One Substance to receive its whole Being from Another in that they derive their Second Hypostasis or Substance though Eternal from the First and their Third from Both and all Inferiour Ranks of Beings from all Three Plotinus Porphyrius Iamblichus Hierocles Proclus and Others derived Matter from the Deity Thus the Chaldee Oracles and the old Egyptian or Hermaick Theology also according to Iamblichus Those Platonists who supposed the World and Souls Eternal conceived them to have received their Being as much from the Deity as if Made in Time Page 750 752 Having now Disproved this Proposition Nothing out of Nothing in the Atheistick Sense viz. That no Substance was Caused or Derived its Being from Another but whatsoever is Substantial did Exist Of It self from Eternity Independently we are in the next place to make it appear also That were it True it would no more oppose Theism then it doth Atheism Falshoods though not Truths may Disagree Plutarch the Stoicks and Others who made God the Creatour of no Substance though not Genuine yet Zealous Theists But the Ancient Atheists both in Plato and Aristotle Generated and Corrupted All things that is Produced All things out of Nothing or Non-Existence and Reduced them into Nothing again the bare Substance of Matter onely Excepted The same done by the Democritick and Epicurean Atheists themselves the Makers of this Objection though according to the Principles of their own Atomick Physiology it is Impossible that Life and Unerstanding Soul and Mind should be meer Modifications of Matter As Theists give a Creative Power of All out of Nothing to the Deity so do Atheists to Passive and Dead Mattâ—r Wherefore this can be no Argument against Theism it Equally opposing Atheism Page 752 756 An Anacephalaeosis wherein Observable That Cicero makes De Nihilo fieri and Sine Causa To be made out of Nothing and to be made without a Cause One and the Self-same thing as also that he doth not Confine this to the Material Cause onely Our Third and Last Undertaking To Prove that Atheists Produce Real Entities out of Nothing in the First Impossible Sense that is Without a Cause Page 756 757 A Brief Synopsis of Atheism That Matter being the onely Substance is therefore the onely Un-made Thing and That whatsoever else is in the World besides the Bare Substance thereof was Made out of Matter or Produced from that alone Page 757 The First Argument When Atheists affirm Matter to be the onely Substance and all things to be Made out of that they Suppose all to be Made without an Efficient Cause which is to bring them from Nothing in an Impossible Sense Though Something may be Made without a Material Cause Prae-Existing yet cannot any thing Possibly be Made without an Efficient Cause Wherefore if there be any thing Made which was Not before there must of Necessity be besides Matter some other Substance as the Active Efficient Cause thereof The Atheistick Hypothesis supposes Things to be Made without any Active or Effective Principle Whereas the Epicurean Atheists Attribute the Efficiency of all to Local Motion and yet deny Matter or Body their onely Substance a Self-moving Power They hereby make all the Motion that is in the World to have been Without a Cause or to Come from Nothing all Action without an Agent all Efficiency without an Efficient Page 758 Again Should we grant these Atheists Motion without a Cause yet could not Dead and Sensless Matter together with Motion ever beget Life Sense and Understanding because this would be Something out of Nothing in way of Causality Local Motion onely Châ—nging the Modifications of Matter as Figure Place Site and Disposition of Parts Hence also those Spurious Theists Confuted who Conclude God to have done no more in the Making of the World then a Carpenter doth in the Building of a House upon this Pretence That Nothing can be made out of Nothing and yet suppose him to Make Souls out of Dead and Sensless Matter which is to bring them from Nothing in way of Causality Page 758 759 Declared before That the Ancient Italicks and Pythagoricks Proved in this manner That Souls could not possibly be Generated out of Matter because Nothing can come from Nothing in way of Causality The Subterfuge of the Atheistick Ionicks out of Aristotle That Matter being the onely Substance and Life Sense and Unâ—erstanding Nothing but the Passions Affections and Dispositions thereof the Production of them out of Matter no Production of any new Reall Entity Page 759 Answer Atheists taking it for granted That there is no other Substance besides Body or Matter therefore falsly conclude Life Sense and Understanding to be Accidents or Modes of Matter they being indeed the Modes or Attributes of Substance Incorporeal and Self-Active A Mode That which cannot be Conceived without the Thing whereof it is a Mode but Life and Cogitation may be Conceived without Corporeal Extension and indeed cannot be Conceived with it Page 759 760 The chief Occasion of this Errour from Qualities and Forms as Because the Quality of Heat and Form of Fire may be Generated out of Matter therefore Life Cogitation and Understanding also But the Atomick Atheists themselves Explode Qualities as things Really distinct from the Figure Site and Motion of Parts for this very reason Because Nothing can be made out of Nothing Causally The Vulgar Opinion of such Real Qualities in Bodies onely from mens mistaking their own Phancies Apparitions Passions Affections and Seemings for things Really Existing without them That in these Qualities which is distinct from the Figure Site and Motion of Parts not the Accidents and Modifications of Matter but of Our own Souls The Atomick Atheists infinitely Absurd when exploding Qualities because Nothing can come out
things without the Direction of any Mind affirmeth That They held Body and Substance to be One and the Self-same thing From whence it follows That Incorporeal Substance is Incorporeal Body or Contradictious Nonsense and That whatsoever is not Body is Nothing He likewise addeth That they who asserted the Soul to be a Body but had not the Confidence to make Prudence and other Vertues Bodies or Bodily quite overthrew the Cause of Atheism Aristotle also representeth the Atheistick Hypothesis thus That there is but One Nature Matter and this Corporeal or endued with Magnitude the onely Substance and all other things the Passions and Affections thereof Page 767 769 In Disproving Incorporeal Substance some Difference amongst the Atheists themselves First Those who held a Vacuum as Epicurus and Democritus c. though taking it for grantâ—d That what is Un-extended or Devoid of Magnitude is Nothing yet acknowledged a Double Extended Nature the First Impenetrable and Tangible Body the Second Penetrable and Intangible Space or Vacuum To them the Onely Incorporeal Their Argument thus Since Nothing Incorporeal besides Space which can neither Doe nor Suffer any thing therefore no Incorporeal Deity The Answer If Space be a Real Nature and yet not Bodily then must it needs be either an Affection of Incorporeal Substance or else an Accident without a Substance Gassendus his Officiousness here to help the Atheists That Space is neither Accident nor Substance but a Middle Nature or Essence betwixt Both. But whatsoever Is must either Subsist by it Self or else be an Attribute Affection or Mode of Something that Subsisteth by it Self Space either the Extension of Body or of Incorporeal Substance or of Nothing but Nothing cannot be Extended wherefore Space supposed not to be the Extension of Body must be the Extension of an Incorporeal Substance Infinite or the Deity as some Theists Assert Page 769 770 Epicurus his Pretended Gods Such as could neither Touch nor be Touched and had not Corpus but Quasi Corpus onely and therefore Incorporeals distinct from Space But Granted that He Colluded or Juggled in this Page 770 Other Atheists who denied a Vacuum and allowed not Space to be a Nature but a meer Imaginary thing the Phantasm of a Body or else Extension considered Abstractly Argued thus Whatsoever is Extended is Body or Bodily But whatsoever Is is Extended Therefore whatsoever Is is Body Page 770 771 This Argument against Incorporeal Substance Answered Two manner of ways Some Asserters of Incorporeal Substance denying the Minor Whatsoever Is is Extended others the Major of it Whatsoever is Exended is Body First The Generality of Ancient Incorporealists realâ—y maintained That there was Something Un-Extended Indistant Devoid of Quantity and of Magnitude Without Parts and Indivisible Plato That the Soul is before Longitude Latitude and Profundity He also Denies That whatsoever is in no Place is Nothing Aristotle's First Immovable Mover also Devoid of Magnitude So likewise is Mind or That which Understands to him He also denies Place and Local Motion to the Soul otherwise then by Accident with the Body Page 771 773 Philo's Double Substance Distant and Indistant God also to him both Every-where because his Powers Extend to all things and yet No-where as in a Place Place being Created by him together with Bodies Plotinus much concerned in this Doctrine Two Books of his upon this Subject That One and the same Numerical thing viz. the Deity may be All or the Whole Every-where God to him Before all things that are in a Place therefore Wholly Present to whatsoever Present This would he prove also from Natural Instincts He Affirmeth likewise That the Humane Soul is Numerically the Same both in the Hand and in the Foot Simplicius his Argument for Un-Extended Substance That Whatsoever is Self-Moving must be Indivisible and Indistant His Affirmation That Souls Locally Immovable Move the Body by Cogitation Page 773 775 None more full and express in this then Porphyrius His Assertion That were there such an Incorporeal Space as Democritus and Epicurus supposed Mind or God could not be Co-Extended with it but onely Body The whole Deity Indivisibly and Indistantly Present to every Part of Divisible and Distant things Page 775 776 Thus Origen in his Against Celsus Saint Austine That the Humane Soul hath no Dimensions of Length Breadth and Thickness and is in it Self Illocabilis Boëtius reckons this amongst the Common Notions known onely to wise men That Incorporeals are in No Place Page 776 This therefore no Novel or Recent Opinion That the Deity is not Part of it Here and Part of it There nor Mensurable by Yards and Poles but the Whole Undivided Present to every Part of the World But because many Objections against this we shall further Shew how these Ancient Incorporealists endeavoured to Quit themselves of them The First Objection That to suppose the Deity and other Incorporeal Substances Un-Extended is to make them Absolute Parvitudes and so Contemptible things Plotinus his Answer That what is Incorporeal not so Indivisible as a Little thing either a Physical Minimum or Mathematical Point for thus God could not Congruere with the whole World nor the Soul with the whole Body Again God not so Indivisible as the Least he being the Greatest of all not in Magnitude but Power He so Indivisible as also Infinite This an Errour proceeding from Sense and Imagination That what Un-Extended therefore Little Incorporeal Substance the Whole of which is Present to every Part of Body therefore Greater then Body Porphyrius to the same purpose That God is neither to be look'd upon as the Least nor as the Greatest in a way of Magnitude Page 776 778 The Second Objection That what neither Great nor Little and possesses no Place a Non-Entity This according to Plato Plotinus and Porphyrius a Mistake proceeding from mens adhering to Sense and Imagination They Grant That an Un-Extended Being Is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Un-Imaginable Porphyrius That Mind and Phancy are not the same as some maintain That which can either Doe or Suffer not Nothing though it swell not out into Distance Two Kinds of Substances to Plotinus Bulky Tumours and Un-bulky Active Powers Which latter said by Simplicius to have nevertheless a certain Depth or Profundity in them Something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Un-imaginable even in Body it self We cannot Possibly Imagine the Sun of such a Bigness as Reason Evinces it to be Vrged also by Plotinus That an Un-stretcht-Out Duration or Timeless Eternity as difficult to be Conceived as an Un-Extended Substance and yet must this needs be Attributed to the Deity Page 778 781 That God and Humane Souls no otherwise Incorporeal then as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Thin or Subtile Body False Because the Difference of Grosseness and Subtilty in Bodies according to True Philosophy onely from Motion That the most Subtile Body may possibly be made as Grosse as Lead or Iron and the Grossest as Subtile as Aether No Specifick
Difference of Matter Page 781 The Third Argument against Un-Extended Substance That to be All in the Whole and All in every Part a Contradiction and Impossibility This Granted by Plotinus to be True of Bodies or that which is Extended That it cannot be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Impossible that what hath no Parts should be a Part here and a Part there Wherefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Whole in the Whole and Whole in every Part to be taken onely in a Negative Sense for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Undivided The Whole Undivided Deity Every-where and not a Part of it Here onely and a Part There Page 782 783 The Last Objection is against the Illocality and Immobility of Finite Created Spirits and Humane Souls onely That this not onely Absurd but also Contrary to that Generally Received Tradition amongst Theists of Souls Moving Locally after Death into another Place called Hades Two Answers of Plotinus to this First That by Hades may be meant onely the Invisible or the Soul 's Acting without the Body Secondly That if by Hades be Meant a Worser place the Soul may be said to be there where its Idol is But when this same Philosopher supposeth the Soul in Good men to be separable also from this Idol he departeth from the Genuine Cabbala of his own School That Souls alwaies united to some Body or other This asserted here by Porphyrius That the Soul is never quite naked of all Body and therefore may be said to be there wheresoever its Body is Page 784 785 Some Excerptions out of Philoponus wherein the Doctrine of the Ancients concerning the Soul's Spirituous or Airy Body after Death is Largely declared Page 785 787 Intimated here by Philoponus That according to some of these Ancients the Soul hath such a Spirituous Body here in this Life as its Interiour Indument which then adheres to it when its Outer Garment is stript off by Death An Opinion of some That the Soul may in this Spirituous Body leave its Grosser Body for some time without Death True That our Soul doth not immediately Act upon Bones and Flesh but certain Thin and Subtile Spirits the Instruments of Sense and Motion Of which Porphyrius thus The Bloud is the Food of the Spirit and the Spirit the Vehicle of the Soul Page 787 788 The same Philoponus further Addeth That according to the Ancients besides both the Terrestrial and this Spirituous or Airy Body there is yet a Third kind of Body peculiar to such as are Souls as are more thoroughly purged after Death called by them a Luciform and Heavenly and Aetherial and Starre-like Body Of this Proclus also upon the Timaeus who affirmeth it to be Un-organized as likewise Hierocles This called the Thin Vehicle of the Soul in the Chaldee Oracles according to Psellus and Pletho By Hierocles a Spiritual Body in a Sense agreeable to that of the Scripture by Synesius the Divine Body This Distinction of Two Interiour Vehicles or Tunicles of the Soul besides the Terrestrial Body called by Plato the Ostreaceous no Invention of Latter Platonists since Christianity it being plainly insisted upon by Virgil though commonly not Vnderstood Page 788 790 That many of these Platonists and Pythagoreans supposed the Soul in its First Creation when Made pure by God to be Clothed with this Luciform and Heavenly Body which also did alwaies Inseparably adhere to it in its After-Descents into the Aërial and Terrestrial though Fouled and Obscured Thus Pletho And the same Intimated by Galen when he calls this the First Vehicle of the Soul Hence was it that besides the Moral and Intellectual Purgation of the Soul they recommended also a Mystical or Telestick way of Purifying the Aetherial Vehicle by Diet and Catharms This much Insisted on by Hierocles What Pliny's Dying By Wisedom or the Philosophick Death Page 790 792 But this not the Opinion of all That the Same Numerical Aetherial Body always adhereth to the Soul but onely that it every where either Finds or Makes a Body suitable to it self Thus Porphyrius Plato also seems to have been of that Perswasion Page 792 793 This Affirmed by Hierocles to have been the Genuine Cabbala of the Ancient Pythagoreans which Plato afterwards followed Hierocles his Definition of a Man A Rational Soul together with a Cognate Immortal Body he declaring This enlivened Terrestrial Body to be but the Idol or Image of the True man or an Accession to him This therefore the Answer of the Ancient Incorporealists to that Objection against the Illocality and Immobility of Created Incorporeals That these being all Naturally Vnited to Some Body or other may be thus said to be in a Place and Locally Moved And That it does not follow that because Created Incorporeals are Un-extended they might therefore inform the whole Corporeal Universe Page 793 794 That it would be no Impertinent Digression here To Compare the forementioned Pythagorick Cabbala with the Doctrine of Christianity and to consider their Agreement or Disagreement First therefore A Clear Agreement of these most Religious Philosophers with Christianity in this That the Highest Happiness and Perfection of Humane Nature consisteth not in a Separate State of Souls Un-united to any Body as some High-flown Persons have Conceited Thus Plotinus who sometimes runs as much into the other Extream in supposing Humane Souls to Animate not onely the Bodies of Brutes but also of Plants Thus also Maimonides amongst the Jews and therefore suspected for denying the Resurrection His Iggereth Teman written purposely to purge himself of this Suspicion The Allegorizers of the Resurrection and of the Life to come Page 794 795 Again Christianity Correspondeth with the Philosophick Cabbala concerning Humane Souls in this That their Happiness consisteth not in Conjunction with such Gross Terrestrial Bodies as these we now have Scripture as well as Philosophy complaining of them as a Heavy Load and Burthen to the Soul which therefore not to be taken up again at the Resurrection Such a Resurrection as this called by Plotinus a Resurrection to Another Sleep The Difference betwixt the Resurrection-Body and this Present Body in Scripture The Resurrection-Body of the Just as that of the Philosophick Cabbala Immortal and Eternal Glorious and Lucid Star-like and Spiritual Heavenly and Angelical Not this Gross Fleshly Body Guilded and Varnished over in the outside onely but Changed throughout This the Resurrection of Life in Scripture Emphatically called The Resurrection Our Souls Strangers and Pilgrims in these Terrestrial Bodies Their proper Home and Country the Heavenly Body That the Grossest Body that is according to Philosophy may meerly by Motion be brought into the Purity and Tenuity of the Finest Aether Page 795 799 But whether Humane Souls after Death alwaies Vnited to some Body or else quite Naked from all Body till the Resurrection not so Explicitly determined in Christianity Souls after Death Live unto God According to Origen This a Priviledge Proper to the Deity to Live and
Act alone without Vital Union with any Body If Natural to the Soul to Enliven a Body then not probable that it should be kept so long in an Unnatural State of Separation Page 799 800 Again Probable from Scripture That wicked Souls after Death have Punishment of Sense or Pain besides Remorse of Conscience which not easily Conceivable How they should have without Bodies Thus Tertullian He adding That Men have the same Shape or Effigies after this Life which they had here Though indeed he drive the business too far so as to make the Soul it self to be a Body Figurate and Colourate Page 800 801 But Irenaeus plainly supposed the Soul after Death being Incorporeal to be Adapted to a Body such as has the same Character and Figure with its Body here in this Life Page 801 802 Origen also of this Perswasion That Souls after Death have certain Subtile Bodies retaining the same Characterizing Form which their Terrestrial Bodies had His Opinion That Apparitions of the Dead are from the Souls themselves surviving in that which is called a Luciform Body As also that Saint Thomas did not doubt but that the Body of a Soul departed might appear every way like the Former onely be disbelieved our Saviour's appearing in the Same Solid Body which he had before Death Page 802 804 Our Saviour telling his Disciples That a Spirit had no Flesh and Bones that is no Solid Body as himself then had seems to Imply them to have Thinner Bodies which they may Visibly Appear in Thus in Apollonius is Touch made the Sign to distinguish a Ghost Appearing from a Living Man Our Saviour's Body after his Resurrection according to Origen in a Middle State betwixt This Gross or Solid Body of ours and That of a Ghost Page 804 A place of Scripture which as interpreted by the Fathers would Naturally Imply the Soul of our Saviour after Death not to have been quite Naked of all Body but to have had a Corporeal Spirit Moses and Elias Visibly appearing to our Saviour had therefore True Bodies Page 804 805 That the Regenerate here in this Life have a certain Earnest of their Future Inheritance which is their Spiritual or Heavenly Body Gathered from Scripture by Irenaeus and Novatian Which Praelibations of the Spiritual Body cannot so well consist with a Perfect Separation from all Body after Death till the Day of Judgement Page 805 806 This Opinion of Irenaeus Origen and others supposed by them not at all to Clash with the Christian Article of the Resurrection Nothing in this Point determined by us Page 806 The Last thing in the Pythagorick Cabbala That Daemons or Angels and indeed all Created Understanding Beings consist as well as Men of Soul and Body Incorporeal and Corporeal Vnited together Thus Hierocles Vniversally of all the Rational Nature and that no Incorporeal Substance besides the Supreme Deity is Compleat without the Conjunction of a Body God the Onely Incorporeal in this Sense and not a Mundane but Supra-Mundane Soul Page 806 808 Origen's full Agreement with this Old Pythagorick Cabbala That Rational Creatures are neither Body nor yet without Body but Incorporeal Substances having a Corporeal Indument Page 808 809 Origen misrepresented by Huetius as asserting Angels not to Have Bodies but to Be Bodies whereas he plainly acknowledged the Humane Soul to be Incorporeal and Angels also to have Souls He proveth Incorporeal Creatures from the Scriptures which though themselves not Bodies yet always Use Bodies Whereas the Deity is neither Body nor yet clothed with a Body as the Proper Soul thereof Page 809 810 Some of the Fathers so far from supposing Angels altogether Incorporeal that they ran into the other Extream and concluded them altogether Corporeal that is to be All Body and Nothing else The Middle betwixt both these the Origenick and Phythagorick Hypothesis That they consist of Incorporeal and Corporeal Substance Soul and Body Joyned together The Generality of the Ancient Fathers for neither of those Extreams That they did not suppose Angels to be perfectly Unbodied Spirits Evident from their affirming Devils as the Greek Philosophers did Demons to be Delighted with the Nidours of Sacrifices as having their Vapourous Bodies or Airy Vehicles refreshed thereby Thus Porphyrius and before him Celsus Amongst the Christians besides Origen Justin Athenagoras Tatianus c. S. Basil concerning the Bodies of Demons or Devils being Nourished with Vapours not by Organs but throughout their whole Substance Page 810 812 Several of the Fathers plainly asserting both Devils and Angels to consist of Soul and Body Incorporeal and Corporeal Substance Joyned together Saint Austine Claudianus Mamertus Fulgentius Joannes Thessalonicensis and Psellus who Philosophizeth much concerning this Page 812 814 That some of the Ancients when they called Angels Incorporeal understood Nothing else thereby but onely that they had not Grosse but Subtile Bodies Page 814 815 The Fathers though herein Happening to Agree with the Philosophick Cabbala yet seemed to have been led thereunto by Scripture As from that of our Saviour They who shall obtain the Resurrection of the Dead shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Equal to the Angels that is according to Saint Austine shall have Angelical Bodies From that of Saint Jude That Angels Sinning lost their Own Proper Dwelling-House that is their Heavenly Body called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Saint Paul which made them Fit Inhabitants of the Heavenly Regions and thereupon Cast down into the Lower Tartarus interpreted by Saint Austine to be this Caliginous Air or Atmo-Sphear of the Earth Again From that Fire said to have been Prepared for the Devils which being not to be taken Metaphorically therefore as Psellus concludeth Implies them to be Bodied because an Incorporeal Substance alone and not Vitally Vnited to any Body cannot be Tormented with Fire Page 815 817 Now if all Created Incorporeals Superiour to Men be Souls vitally Vnited to Bodies and never quite Separate from all Body then Probable that Humane Souls after Death not quite Naked from all Body as if they could Live and Act compleatly without it a Priviledge Superiour to that of Angels and proper to the Deity Nor is it at all Conceivable How Imperfect Beings could have Sense and Imagination without Bodies Origen Contra Celsum Our Soul in its own Nature Incorporeal alwaies Standeth in need of a Body suitable to the place wherein it is And accordingly Sometimes Putteth Off what it had before and Sometimes again Putteth On something New Where the following words being vitiated Origen's Genuine Sense restored Evident that Origen distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul Translated Tabernacle from the Earthly House he understanding by the former a Thin Spirituous Body which is a Middle betwixt the Earthly and the Heavenly and which the Soul remaineth still clothed with after Death This Opinion of Origen's That the Soul after Death not quite Separate from all Body never reckoned up in the Catalogue of his Errours Origen not Taxed
by Rabbi Solomon and others Psal. 65.6 where God is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Confidence of all the Ends of the Earth and of them that are afar off in the Sea that is even of all the Pagan World Thus we see plainly that the Hebrew Doctors and Rabbins have been generally of this perswasion that the Pagan Nations anciently at least the Intelligent amongst them acknowledged One Supreme God of the Whole World and that all their Other Gods were but Creatures and Inferiour Ministers which were worshipped by them vpon these Two Accounts either as thinking that the Honour done to them redounded to the Supreme or else that they might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Mediators and Intercessors Orators and Negotiators with him Which Inferiour Gods of the Pagans were supposed by these Hebrews to be chiefly of Two Kinds Angels and Stars or Spheres The Latter of which the Jews as well as Pagans concluded to be Animated and Intellectual For thus Maimonides expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Stars and Spheres are every one of them Animated and endued with Life Knowledge and Vnderstanding And they acknowledge him who commanded and the World was made every one of them according to their degree and excellency praising and honouring him as the Angels do And this they would confirm from that place of Scripture Neh. 9.6 Thou even thou art Lord alone Thou hast made Heaven the Heaven of Heavens with all their Host the Earth with all things that are therein the Seas and all that is therein and Thou preservest them all and the Host of Heaven Worshippeth Thee The Host of Heaven being commonly put for the Stars XXXI But Lastly this same thing is plainly confirmed from the Scriptures of the New Testament also That the Gentiles and Pagans however Polytheists and Idolaters were not unacquainted with the knowledge of the True God that is of the One only Self-existent and Omnipotent Being which Comprehendeth all things under him From whence it must needs follow that their other Many Gods were all of them supposed to have been derived from this One and to be Dependent on him For First St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans tells us that these Gentiles or Pagans did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hold the Truth in Vnrighteousness or Vnjustly Detain and Imprison the same Which is chiefly to be understood of the Truth concerning God as appears from that which follows and therefore implies the Pagans not to have been unfurnshed of such a knowledge of God as might and ought to have kept them from all kinds of Idolatry however by their Default it proved ineffectual to that end as is afterwards declared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They liked not to retain God in the Agnition or Practical Knowledge of him Where there is a distinction to be observed betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Knowledge and the Agnition of God the former whereof in this Chapter is plainly granted to the Pagans though the Latter be here denied them because they lapsed into Polytheism and Idolatry which is the meaning of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They changed the truth of God into a lye Again the same Apostle there affirmeth That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which may be Known of God was manifest within them God himself having shewed it unto them There is something of God Vnknowable and Incomprehensible by all Mortals but that of God which is Knowable his Eternal Power and Godhead with the Attributes belonging thereunto is made manifest to all mankind from his works The invisible things of him from the Creation of the World being clearly seen and understood by the things that are made Moreover this Apostle expresly declareth the Pagans to have known God in that Censure which he giveth of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when they Knew God they Glorified him not as God because they fell into Polytheism and Idolatry Though the Apostle here instanceth only in the Latter of those Two their changing the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to Corruptible man and to birds and beasts and creeping things The reason whereof is because this Idolatry of the Pagans properly so called that is their worshipping of stocks and stones formed into the likeness of Man or Beast was generally taken amongst the Jews for the grossest of all their Religious Miscarriages Thus Philo plainly declareth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Whosoever worship the Sun and Moon and the whole Heaven and World and the chief Parts thereof as Gods do unquestionably Err they honouring the subjects of the Prince but they are guilty of less iniquity and injustice than those who form wood and stone gold and silver and the like matters into Statues to worship them c. of which assertion he afterwards gives this account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because these have cut off the most excellent Fulcrum of the Soul the perswasion of the Everliving God by means whereof like unballasted ships they are tossed up and down perpetually nor can be ever able to rest in any safe harbour And from hence it came to pass that the Polytheism of the Pagans their worshipping of Inferiour Gods as Stars and Demons was vulgarly called also by the Jews and Christians Idolatry it being so denominated by them à famosiore specie Lastly the Apostle plainly declares that the errour of the Pagan Superstition universally consisted not in worshipping Many Independent Gods and Creators but injoyning Creature-worship as such some way or other with the Worship of the Creator 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words are either to be thus rendred They religiously worshipped the Creature Besides the Creator that Prepositon being often used in this sence as for example in this of Aristotle where he affirmeth concerning Plato that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not make Numbers to be the Things themselves as the Pythagoreans had done but Vnity and Numbers to be Besides the things or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numbers to exist by themselves Besides the Sensibles He by Numbers meaning as Aristotle himself there expounds it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ideas conteined in the First Intellect which was Plato's Second Divine Hypostasis as also by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Ipsum Unum or Vnity which gives being to those Ideas is understood Plato's First Divine Hypostasis Or else the Words ought to be translated thus And worshipped the Creature Above or More than the Creator that Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sometimes used Comparatively so as to signifie Excess as for example in Luke 13.2 Think that these Galileans were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sinners beyond all the Galileans And ver 4. Think you that those eighteen upon whom the Tower of Siloam fell were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 debters above all the men that dwelt in Jerusalem According to either of