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
of the Creation but the Son is the immediate Opifex thereof His meaning is that according to this Persian or Chaldaick Theology the First Hypostasis of the Divine Triad was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Immediate Architect of the World whereas according to the Christian as well as Platonick Doctrine he is the Second For which cause Pletho framed another Interpretation of that Magick Oracle to render it more conformable both to the Christian and Platonick Doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Father perfected all things that is the Intelligible Ideas for these are those things which are complete and perfect and delivered them to the Second God to rule over them Wherefore whatsoever is produced by this God according to its own Exemplar and the Intelligible Essence must needs owe its Original also to the Highest Father Which Second God the Generations of men commonly take for the First they looking up no higher than to the Immediate Architect of the World According to which Interpretation of Pletho's the more probable of the Two the Second Hypostasis in the Magick or Persian Trinity as well as in the Platonick and Christian is the Immediate Opifex or Architect of the World and this seems to be properly that which was called Mithras in Eubulus But besides these Two Hypostases there is also a Third mentioned in a certain other Magick or Chaldaick Oracle cited by Proclus under the Name of Psyche or the Mundane Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After or next below the Paternal Mind I Psyche dwell Now the Paternal Mind as Psellus informs us is the Second Hypostasis before-mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Paternal Mind is the Second God and the Immediate Demiurgus or Opifex of the Soul Wherefore though both those Names Oromasdes and Mithras were frequently used by the Magi for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whole Deity in General yet this being Triplasian or Threefold according to their Theology as conteining Three Hypostases in it the First of those Three seems to have been that which was most properly called Oromasdes and the Second Mithras And this is not only confirmed by Pletho but also with this further Superaddition to it that the Third Hypostasis of that Persian Trinity was that which they called Arimanius he gathering as much even from Plutarch himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They say that Zoroaster made a Threefold Distribution of Things and that he assigned the First and Highest Rank of them to Oromasdes who in the Oracles is called the Father the lowest to Arimanes and the Middle to Mithras who in the same Oracles is likewise called the Second Mind Whereupon he observes how great an Agreement there was betwixt the Zoroastrian and the Platonick Trinity they differing in a manner only in Words And the Middle of these namely the Eternal Intellect that conteins the Ideas of all things being according to the Platonick Hypothesis the Immediate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Architect of the World this probably was that Mithras as we have already intimated who is called in Eubulus the Demiurgus of the World and the Maker and Father of all things Now if that Third Hypostasis of the Magick or Chaldaick Oracles be the same with that which the Persians call Arimanius then must it be upon such an accompt as this because this Lower World wherein are Souls Vitally united to Bodies and Lapsable is the Region where all manner of Evils Wickedness Pains Corruption and Mortality reign And herewith Hesychius seemeth to agree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arimanius among the Persians is Hades that is either Orcus or Pluto wherein he did but follow Theopompus who in Plutarch calls Arimanius likewise Hades or Pluto which it seems was as well the Third in the Persian Trinity or Triplasian Deity as it was in the Homerican And this was that Arimanius whom the Persian King in Plutarch upon Themistocles his flight addressed his Devotion to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He prayed that Arimanius would always give such a mind to his Enemies as thus to banish and drive away their best men from them And indeed from that which Plutarch affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Persians from their God Mithras called any Mediator or Middle betwixt two Mithras it may be more reasonably concluded that Mithras according to the Persian Theology was properly the Middle Hypostasis of that Triplasian or Triplicated Deity of theirs than that he should be a Middle Self-existent God or Mediator betwixt Two Adversary Gods Vnmade one Good and the other Evil as Plutarch would suppose Notwithstanding which if that which the same Plutarch and others do so confidently affirm should be true that Zoroaster and the ancient Magi made Good and Evil Light and Darkness the Two Substantial Principles of the Universe that is asserted an Evil Daemon Coeternal with God and Independent on him in the very same manner that Plutarch himself and the Manicheans afterward did yet however it is plain that in this way also Zoroaster and the Magi acknowledged One only Fountain and Original of all Good and nothing to be independent upon that One Good Principle or God but only that which is so contrary to his Nature and Perfection as that it could not proceed from him namely Evil. But we have already discovered a suspicion that the meaning of those ancient Magi might possibly be otherwise they philosophizing only concerning a certain Mixture of Evil and Darkness together with Good and Light that was in the Composition of this Lower World and Personating the same as also perhaps taking notice especially therein of Evil Daemons who are acknowledged likewise in the Magick Oracles and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beasts of the Earth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Terrestial Dogs the Head of which might be sometimes called also Emphatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Evil Demon of the Persians as being the very same with the Devil all which was under the immediate Presidency or Government of that God called by them Arimanius Hades or Pluto the Third Hypostasis in the Triplasian Deity of the Persians Which suspicion may be yet further confirmed from hence because the Persian Theologers as appears by the Inscriptions expresly acknowledged the Divine Omnipotence which they could not possibly have done had they admitted of a Manichean Substantial Evil Principle Coeternal with God and Independent on him Besides which it is observable that whereas the Gnosticks in Plotinus time asserting this World to have been made not so much from a Principle Essentially Evil and Eternal as from a Lapsed Soul to weigh down the Authority of Plato that was against them did put Zoroaster in the other Scale producing a Book entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Revelations of Zoroaster Porphyrius tells us that himself wrote purposely to disprove those Zoroastrian Revelations as New and Counterfeit and forged by those Gnosticks
out of Hermaick Writings then extant to this very purpose We shall only set down one of them here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The World hath a Governour set over it that Word of the Lord of all which was the Maker of it this is the first Power after himself Vncreated Infinite looking out from him and ruling over all things that were made by him this is the Perfect and genuine Son of the first Omniperfect Being Nevertheless the Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Asclepian Dialogue in that forecited Passage of his by his Second God the Son of the First meant no such thing at all as the Christian Logos or Second Person of the Trinity but only the Visible World Which is so plain from the words themselves that it is a wonder how Lactantius and St. Austin could interpret them otherwise he making therein a Question whether this Second God were actively Sensible or no. But the same is farther manifrom other places of that Dialogue as this for example Aeternitatis Dominus Deus Primus est Secundus est Mundus The Lord of Eternity is the First God but the Second God is the World And again Summus qui dicitur Deus Rector Gubernatorque Sensibilis Dei ejus qui in se complectitur omnem locum omnemque rerum substantiam The Supreme God is the Governour of that Sensible God which contains in it all place and all the Substance of things And that this was indeed a part of the Hermaick or Egyptian Theology that the Visible World Animated was a Second God and the Son of the First God appears also from those Hermaick Books published by Ficinus and vulgarly called Poemander though that be only the First of them There hath been one Passage already cited out of the Eighth Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The World is a Second God After which followeth more to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First God is that Eternal Vnmade Maker of all things the Second is he that is made according to the Image of the First which is contained cherished or nourished and immortalized by him as by his own Parent by whom it is made an Immortal Animal So again in the Ninth Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is the Father of the World and the World is the Son of God And in the Twelfth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This whole World is a Great God and the Image of a Greater As for the other Hermetick or Trismegistick Books published partly by Ficinus and partly by Patricius we cannot confidently condemn any of them for Christian Cheats or Impostures save only the Poemander and the Sermon in the Mount concerning Regeneration the First and Thirteenth of Ficinus his Chapters or Books Neither of which Books are cited by any of the Ancient Fathers and therefore may be presumed not to have been extant in Jamblichus his time but more lately forged and that probably by one and the self same hand since the Writer of the Latter the Sermon in the Mount makes mention of the Former that is the Poemander in the close of it For that which Casaubon objects against the Fourth of Ficinus his Books or Chapters entituled the Crater seems not very considerable it being questionable whether by the Crater any such thing were there meant as the Christian Baptisterion Wherefore as for all the rest of those Hermaick Books especially such of them as being cited by ancient Fathers may be presumed to have been extant before Jamblichus his time we know no reason why we should not concurr with that learned Philosopher in his Judgment concerning them That though they often speak the Language of Philosophers and were not written by Hermes Trismegist himself yet they do really contain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hermaical Opinions or the Egyptian Doctrine The Ninth of Ficinus his Books mentions the Asclepian Dialogue under the Greek Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretending to have been written by the same hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of which place not understood by the Translator is this I lately published O Asclepius the Book entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Perfect Oration and now I judge it necessary in pursuit of the same to discours concerning Sense Which Book as well as the Perfect Oration is cited by Lactantius As is also the Tenth of Ficinus called the Clavis which does not only pretend to be of kin to the Ninth and consequently to the Asclepius likewise but also to contain in it an Epitome of that Hermaick Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned in Eusebius his Chronicon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My former Discourse was dedicated to thee O Asclepius but this to Tatius it being an Epitome of those Genica that were delivered to him Which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are thus again afterwards mentioned in the same Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Have you not heard in the Genica that all Souls are derived from one Soul of the Vniverse Neither of which two places were understood by Ficinus But doubtless this latter Hermaick Book had something foisted into it because there is a manifest contradiction found therein forasmuch as that Transmigration of Humane Souls into Brutes which in the former part thereof is asserted after the Egyptian way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the just punishment of the wicked is afterwards cried down and condemned in it as the greatest Error And the Eleventh and Twelfth following Books seem to us to be as Egyptian as any of the rest as also does that long Book entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Thirteenth in Patricius Nay it is observable that even those very Books themselves that are so justly suspected and condemned for Christian Forgeries have something of the Hermaical or Egyptian Philosophy here and there interspersed in them As for example when in the Poemander God is twice called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Male and Female together this seems to have been Egyptian and derived from thence by Orpheus according to that elegant Passage in the Asclepian Dialogue concerning God Hic ergo qui Solus est Omnia utriusque Sexûs foecunditate plenissimus semper Voluntatis suae pregnans parit semper quicquid voluerit procreare He therefore who alone is All Things and most full of the Fecundity of both Sexes being always pregnant of his own Will always produceth whatsoever he pleaseth Again when Death is thus described in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be nothing else but the Change of the Body and the Form or Lifes passing into the Invisible This agreeth with that in the Eleventh Book or Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Death is nothing but a Change it being only the dissolution of the Body and the Life or Soul's passing into the Invisible or Inconspicuous In which Book it is also affirmed of the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That every day some part or other of it goes into the Invisible or
Though sometimes the Egyptians added to the Serpent also a Hawk thus complicating the Hieroglypick of the Deity according to that of a famous Egyptian Priest in Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the First and Divinest Being of all is Symbolically represented by a Serpent having the head of an Hawk And that a Hawk was also sometimes used alone for a Hieroglyphick of the Deity appeareth from that of Plutarch That in the Porch of an Egyptian Temple at Sais were ingraven these Three Hieroglyphicks a Young man an Old man and an Hawk to make up this Sentence That both the Beginning and End of humane Life dependeth upon God or Providence But we have Two more remarkable Passages in the forementioned Horus Apollo concerning the Egyptian Theology which must not be pretermitted the first this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That according to them there is a Spirit passing through the Whole World to wit God And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemeth to the Egyptians that nothing at all consists without God In the next place Jamblichus was a person who had made it his business to inform himself thoroughly concerning the Theology of the Egyptians and who undertakes to give an account thereof in his Answer to Porphyrius his Epistle to Anebo an Egyptian Priest whose Testimony therefore may well seem to deserve credit And he first gives us a Summary account of their Theology after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God who is the Cause of Generation and the whole Nature and of all the Powers in the Elements themselves is Separate Exempt Elevated above and expanded over all the Powers and Elements in the World For being above the World and transcending the same Immaterial and Incorporeal Supernatural Vnmade Indivisible manifested wholly from himself and in himself he ruleth over all things and in himself conteineth all things And because he virtually comprehends all things therefore does he impart and display the same from himself According to which excellent Description of the Deity it is plain that the Egyptians asserting One God that Comprehends All things could not possibly suppose a Multitude of Self-existent Deities In which place also the same Jamblichus tells us that as the Egyptian Hieroglyphick for Material and Corporeal things was Mud or floating Water so they pictur'd God in Loto arbore sedentem super Lutum sitting upon the Lote-tree above the Watery Mud Quod innuit Dei eminentiam altissimam qua fit ut nullo modo attingat Lutum ipsum Demonstratque Dei imperium intellectuale quia Loti arboris omnia sunt rotunda tam frondes quà m fructus c. Which signifies the transcendent Eminency of the Deity above the Matter and its intellectual Empire over the World because both the Leaves and Fruit of that tree are Round representing the Motion of intellect Again he there adds also that the Egyptians sometime pictured God sitting at the Helm of a Ship But afterward in the same Book he sums up the Queries which Porphyrius had propounded to the Egyptian Priest to be resolved concerning them in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You desire to be resolved What the Egyptians think to be the first Cause of all Whether Intellect or something above Intellect And that Whether alone or with some other Whether Incorporeal or Corporeal Whether the first Principle be the same with the Demiurgus and Architect of the World or before him Whether all things proceed from One or Many Whether they suppose Matter or Qualified Bodies to be the first and if they admit a First Matter Whether they assert it to be Vnmade or Made In answer to which Porphyrian Quaeries Jamblichus thus begins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall first reply to that you first demand That according to the Egyptians before all Entities and Principles there is One God who is in order of nature before him that is commonly called the first God and King Immoveable and always remaining in the solitariety of his own Vnity there being nothing Intelligible nor any thing else complicated with him c. In which words of Jamblichus and those others that there follow after though there be some obscurity and we may perhaps have occasion further to consider the meaning of them elsewhere yet he plainly declares that according to the Egyptians the first Original of all things was a perfect Unity above Intellect but intimating withall that besides this First Unity they did admit of certain other Divine Hypostases as a Perfect Intellect and Mundane Soul subordinate thereunto and dependent on it concerning which he thus writeth afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Egyptians acknowledge before the Heaven and in the Heaven a Living Power or Soul and again they place a pure Mind or Intellect above the World But that they did not acknowledge a Plurality of Coordinate Independent Principles is further declared by him after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus the Egyptian Philosophy from first to last begins from Vnity and thence descends to Multitude the Many being always governed by the One and the Infinite or Vndeterminate nature every where mastered and conquered by some finite and determined measure and all ultimately by that highest Vnity that is the first Cause of all things Moreover in answer to the last Porphyrian Question concerning Matter whether the Egyptians thought it to be Vnmade and Selfexistent or Made Jamblichus thus replies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That according to Hermes and the Egyptians Matter was also Made or produced by God ab Essentialitate succisa ac subscissâ Materialitate as Scutellius turns it Which Passage of Jamblichus Proclus upon the Timaeus where he asserts that God was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the uneffable cause of Matter takes notice of in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Tradition of the Egyptians agreeth herewith That Matter was not Vnmade or Self-existent but produced by the Deity For the Divine Jamblichus hath recorded that Hermes would have Materiality to have been produced from Essentiality that is the Passive Principle of Matter from that Active Principle of the Deity And it is very probable from hence that Plato was also of the same opinion concerning Matter viz. because he is supposed to have followed Hermes and the Egyptians Which indeed is the more likely if that be true which the same Proclus affirmeth concerning Orpheus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Orpheus also did after the same manner deduce or derive Matter from the First Hypostasis of Intelligibles that is from the Supreme Deity We shall conclude here in the last place with the Testimony of Damascius in his Book of Principles writing after this manner concerning the Egyptians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eudemus hath given us no exact account of the Egyptians but the Egyptian Philosophers that have been in our times have declared the hidden truth of their Theology having found in certain Egyptian Writings that there was according to them One
they were made Idcirco non erant quando nata non erant sed in eo jam tunc erant unde nasci habuerunt they did not properly then exist before they were made and yet at that very time were they in him from whom they were afterwards produced Again he writes thus concerning God non spero totius Majestatis Effectorem omnium rerum Patrem vel Dominum uno posse quamvis è multis composito nomine nuncupari Hunc voca potius omni nomine siquidem sit Unus Omnia ut necesse sit aut Omnia ipsius nomine aut ipsum omnium nomine nuncupari Hic ergo Solus Omnia c. I cannot hope sufficienly to express the Author of Majesty and the Father and Lord of all things by any One Name though compounded of never so many names Call him therefore by every Name forasmuch as he is One and All things so that of necessity either All things must be called by His name or he by the Names of All things And when he had spoken of the mutability of Created things he adds Solus Deus ipse In se A se Circum se totus est plenus atque persectus isque sua firma stabilitas est nec alicujus impulsu nec loco moveri potest cum in eo sint Omnia in omnibus ipse est Solus God alone in himself and from himself and about himself is altogether perfect and himself is his own stability Neither can he be moved or changed by the impulse of any thing since All things are in him and he alone is in All things Lastly to omit other places Hic Sensibilis Mundus receptaculum est omnium sensibilium specierum â—ualitatum vel corporum quae omnia sine Deo vegetari non possunt Omnia enim Deus à Deo Omnia sine hoc nec Fuit aliquid nec Est nec Erit Omnia enim ab eo in ipso per ipsum Si totum animadvertes vera ratione perdisces Mundum ipsum Sensibilâ—m quae in eo sunt omnia à Superiore illo Mundo quasi Vestimento esse contecta This Sensible World is the Receptacle of all Forms Qualities and Bodies all which cannot be vegetated and quickned without God for God is All Things and All things are from God and all â—hings the Effect of his Will and without God there neither Was any thing nor Is nor Shall be but all things are from him and in him and by him And if you will consider things after a right manner you shall learn that this sensible World and all the things therein are covered all over with that superiour World or Deity as it were with a Garment As for the other Trismegistick Books of Ficinus his Edition the Third of them called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is thus concluded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Divinity is the whole Mundane Compages or Constitution for Nature is also placed in the Deity In the Fifth Book written upon this Argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Invisible God is must manifest we read thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there is nothing in the whole World which he is not He is both the things that are and the things that are not for the things that are He hath manifested but the things that are not He contains within himself And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is both Incorporeal and Omnicorporeal for there is nothing of any Body which he is not He is all things that are and therefore he hath all Names because all things are from one Father and therefore he hath no Name because he is the Father of all things And in the close of the same Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For what shall I praise thee for those things which thou hast made or for those things which thou hast not made for those things which thou hast manifested or for those things which thou hast hidden and concealed within thy self And for what cause shall I praise thee because I am my own as having something proper and distinct from thee Thou art whatsoever I am thou art whatsoever I do or say for thou art All things and there is nothing which thou art not thou art that which is made and thou art that which is unmade Where it is observable that before things were Made God is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Hide them within himself but when they are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Manifest and reveil them from himself Book the Eighth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnderstand that the whole World is from God and in God for God is the Beginning Comprehension and Constitution of all things Book the Ninth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would not say that God Hath all things but rather declare the truth and say that he Is All things not as receiving them from without but as sending them forth from himself Again afterwards in the same Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There shall never be a time when any thing that is shall cease to be for when I say any thing that Is I say any thing of God for God hath all things in him and there is neither any thing without God nor God without any thing Book the Tenth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is God but the very Being of all things that yet are not and the Subsistence of things that are And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is both the Father and Good because he is All things Book the Eleventh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God acting immediately from himself is always in his own work Himself being that which he makes for if that were never so little separated from him all would of necessity fall to nothing and die Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are in God but not as lying in a place And further since our own Soul can by Cogitation and Phancy become what it will and where it will any thing or in any place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You may consider God in the same manner as containing the whole World within himself as his own Conceptions and Cogitations And in the Close of that Chapter that which is also thence cited by St. Cyril is to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is God Invisible Speak worthily of him for who is more manifest than he for this very reason did he make all things that thou mightest see him through all things This is the Vertue and Goodness of the Deity to be seen through all things The Mind is seen in thinking but God in Working or Making Book the Twelfth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have heard the good Demon for he alone as the first begotten God beholding all things spake Divine Words I have heard him sometimes saying that One is All things Again in the same Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This whole World is intimately united to him and observing the order and will of its
Life is the Soul Concord contains Houses and Cities the cause of which Concord is Law and Harmony contains the whole World the cause of which Mundane Harmony is God And to the same purpose Aristaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As the Artificer is to Art so is God to the Harmony of the world There is also this passage in the same Stobaeus cited out of an anonymous Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is the Principle and the First thing and the World though it be not the Supreme God yet is it Divine Timaeus Locrus a Pythagorean Senior to Plato in his Book concerning Nature or the Soul of the World upon which Plato's Timaeus was but a kind of Commentary plainly acknowledgeth both One Supreme God the Maker and Governour of the whole World and also Many other Gods his Creatures and subordinate Ministers in the close thereof writing thus concerning the punishment of wickedmen after this life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All these things hath Nemesis decreed to be executed in the second Circuit by the Ministry of Vindictive Terrestrial Demons that are Overseers of humane affairs to which Demons that Supreme God the Ruler over all hath committed the Government and Administration of the World Which world is compleated and made up of Gods Men and other Animals all Created according to the best Pattern of the Eternal and Vnmade Idea In which words of Timaeus there are these Three several Points of the Pagan Theology contained First that there is One Supreme God Eternal and Unmade the Creator and Governour of the whole World and who made it according to the Best Pattern or Exemplar of his own Idea's and Eternal Wisdom Secondly that this World Created by God is compounded and made up of other Inferiour Gods Men and Brute Animals Thirdly that the Supreme God hath committed the Administration of our Humane Affairs to Demons and Inferiour Gods who are constant inspectors over us some of which he also makes use of for the punishment of wicked men after this life Moreover in this Book of Timaeus Locrus the Supreme God is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God in way of eminency sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Very Good sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Principle of the Best things sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Maker of the Better Evil being supposed not to proceed from him sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Best and most Powerful Cause sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prince and Parent of all things Which God according to him is not the Soul of the World neither but the Creator thereof he having made the World an Animal and a Secondary Generated God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God willing to make the world the Best that it was capable of made it a Generated God such as should never be destroyed by any other Cause but only by that God himself who framed it if he should ever will to dissolve it But since it is not the part of that which is good to destroy the Best of Works the World will doubtless ever remain Incorruptible and Happy the best of all Generated things made by the Best Cause looking not at Patterns Artificially framed without him but the Idea and Intelligible Essence as the Paradigms which whatsoever is made conformable to must needs be the Best and such as shall never need to be mended Moreover he plainly declares that this Generated God of his the World was produced in Time so as to have a Beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before the Heaven was made existed the Idea Matter and God the Opifex of the Best Wherefore whatever Ocellus and Philolaus might do yet this Timaeus held not the Worlds Eternity wherein he followed not only Pythagoras himself as we have already shewed but also the generality of the first Pythagoreans of whom Aristotle pronounces without exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they Generated the World Timaeus indeed in this Book seems to assert the Pre-eternity of the Matter as if it were a Self-existent Principle together with God and yet Clemens Alexandrinus cites a passage out of him looking another way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Would you hear of one only Principle of all things amongst the Greeks Timaeus Locrus in his Book of Nature will bear me witness thereof he there in express words writing thus There is One Principle of All Things Vnmade for if it were made it would not be a Principle but that would be the Principle from whence it was made Thus we see that Timaeus Locrus asserted One Eternal and Vnmade God the maker of the whole World and besides this another Generated God the World it self Animated with its several Parts the difference betwixt both which Gods is thus declared by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Eternal God who is the Prince Original and Parent of all these things is seen only by the Mind but the other Generated God is visible to our eyes viz. this world and those parts of it which are Heavenly that is the Stars as so many particular Gods contained in it But here it is to be observed that that Eternal God is not only so called by Timaeus as being without beginning but also as having a distinct kind of duration from that of Time which is properly called Aeon or Eternity he therein following Parmenides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Time is but an Image of that Vnmade Duration which we call Eternity wherefore as this sensible World was made according to that Eternal Exemplar or Pattern of the Intelligible World so was Time made together with the World as an Imitation of Eternity It hath been already observed that Onatus another Pythagorean took notice of an Opinion of some in his time that there was One only God who comprehended the whole World and no other Gods besides or at least none such as was to be religiously worshipped himself in the mean time asserting That there was both One God and Many Gods or besides One Supreme and Vniversal Numen Many other Inferiour and Particular Deities to whom also men ought to pay Religious Worship Now his further account of both these Assertions is contained in these following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who maintain that there is only One God and not Many Gods are very much mistaken as not considering aright what the Dignity and Majesty of the Divine Transcendency chiefly consisteth in namely in Ruling and Governing those which are like to it that is Gods and in excelling or surmounting Others and being Superiour to them But all those other Gods which we contend for are to that First and Intelligible God but as the Dancers to the Coryphaeus or Choragus as the Inferior Common Soldiers to the Captain or General to whom it properly belongeth to follow and comply with their Leader and Commander The work indeed
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
That Perfect Happiness is a Speculative or Contemplative Energy maybe made manifest from hence because we account the Gods most of all Happy Now what Moral Actions can we attribute to them Whether those of Justice amongst one another as if it were not ridiculous to suppose the Gods to make Contracts and Bargains among themselves and the like Or else those of Fortitude and Magnanimity As if the Gods had their Fears Dangers and Difficulties to encounter withal Or those of Liberality as if the Gods had some such thing as Money too and there were among them Indigent to receive Alms. Or Lastly shall we attribute to them the Actions of Temperance but would not this be a Reproachful Commendation of the Gods to say that they conquer and master their vitious Lusts and appetites Thus running through all the Actions of Moral Virtue we find them to be small and mean and unworthy of the Gods And yet we all believe the Gods to live and consequently to Act unless we should suppose them perpetually to sleep as Endymion did Wherefore if all Moral Actions and therefore much more Mechanical Operations be taken away from that which Lives and Vnderstands what is there left to it besides Contemplation To which he there adds a further Argument also of the same thing Because other Animals who are depriv'd of Contemplation partake not of Happiness For to the Gods all their Life is Happy to men so far forth as it appoacheth to Contemplation but brute Animals that do not at all contemplate partake not at all of Happiness Where Aristotle plainly acknowledges a Plurality of Gods and that there is a certain Higher Rank of Beings above Men. And by the way we may here observe how from those words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All men suppose the Gods to live and from what follows in him that Opinion of some late Writers may be confuted that the Pagans generally worshipped the Inanimate Parts of the World as true and proper Gods Aristotle here telling us that they Universally agreed in this that the Gods were Animals Living and Understanding Beings and such as are therefore capable of Contemplation Moreover Aristotle in his Politicks writing of the means to conserve a Tyranny as he calls it sets down this for one amongst the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For a Prince or Monarch to seem to be always more than ordinarily sedulous about the Worship of the Gods because men are less afraid of suffering any Injustice from such Kings or Princes as they think to be Religiously disposed and devouâ—ly affected towards the Gods Neither will they be so apt to make conspiracies against such they supposing that the Gods will be their Abettors and Assistants Where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be taken in a good sence and in way of Commendation for a Religious Person though we must confess that Aristotle himself does not here write so much like a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Meer Politician Likewise in his First Book De Coelo he writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All men have an Opinion or Perswasion That there are Gods And they who think so as well Bvrbarians as Greeks attribute the Highest place to that which is Divine as supposing the Immortal Heavens to be most accommodate to Immortal Gods Wherefore if there be any Divinity as unquestionably there is the Body of the Heavens must be acknowledged to be of a different kind from that of the Elements And in the following Book he tells us again That it is most agreeable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that Vaticination which all men have in their minds concerning the Gods to suppose the Heaven to be a Quintessence distinct from the Elements and therefore Incorruptible Where Aristotle affirmeth that men have generally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Vaticination in their Minds concerning Gods to wit that Themselves are not the Highest Beings but that there is a Rank of Intellectual Beings superiour to men the chief of which is the Supreme Deity concerning whom there is indeed the Greatest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vaticination of all We acknowledge it to be very true that Aristotle does not so much insist upon Demons as Plato and the generality of Pagans in that Age did and probably he had not so great a Belief of their Existence though he doth make mention of them also as when in his Metaphysicks speaking of Bodies compounded of the Elements he instanceth in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Animals and Demons and elsewhere he insinuates them to have Airy Bodies in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some perhaps would demand a Reason why the Soul that is in the Air is better and more immortal than that in Animals However whether Aristotle believed these Lower Demon-Gods or no it is certain that he acknowledged a Higher kind of Gods namely the Intelligences of all the Several Spheres if not also the Souls of them and the Stars which Spheres being according to the Astronomy then received Forty Seven in number he must needs acknowledge at least so many Gods Besides which Aristotle seems also to suppose another sort of Incorporeal Gods without the Heavens where according to him there is neither Body nor Place nor Vacuum nor Time in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who exist there are such as are neither apt to be in a Place nor to wax old with Time nor is there any change at all in those things above the Highest Sphere but they being impassible and unalterable lead the best and most self-sufficient Life throughout all Eternity But this Passage is not without suspicion of being Supposititious Notwithstanding all which that Aristotle did assert One Supreme and Vniversal Numen is a thing also unquestionable For though it be granted that he useth the Singular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many times Indefinitly for a God in General or any Divine Being and that such places as these have been oftentimes mistaken by Christian Writers as if Aristotle had meant the Supreme God in them yet it is nevertheless certain that he often useth those words also Emphatically for One only Supreme God As in that of his Metaphysicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God seemeth to be a Cause and certain Principle to all things And also in his De Anima where he speaks of the Soul of the Heavens and its Circular Motion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither is that a good Cause of the Circular Motion of the Heavens which they that is the Platonists call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is Better that it should be so than otherwise as if God therefore ought to have made the Soul of the World such as to move the Heaven circularly because it was better for it to move so than otherwise but this being a Speculation that properly belongs to some other Science we
look'd upon as Barbarians and yet did they not only acknowledge One Supreme Deity but also such as was distinct from the world and therefore Invisible he writing thus concerning them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They believe that there is One Immortal God and this the Cause of all things and another Mortal one anonymous but for the most part they account their Benefactors and Kings Gods also And though Caesar affirm of the ancient Germans Deorum numero eoâ— solos ducunt quos cernunt quorum opibus apertè juvantur Solâ—m Vulcanum Lunam yet is he contradicted by Tacitus who coming after him had better information and others have recorded that they acknowledged One Supreme God under the name of Thau first and then of Thautes and Theutates Lastly the Generality of the Pagans at this very day as the Indians Chineses Siamenses and Guineans the Inhabitants of Peru Mexico Virginia and New England some of which are sufficiently Barbarous acknowledge One Supreme or Greatest God they having their several Proper Names for him as Parmiscer Fetisso Wiracocha Pachacamac Vitziliputzti c. though worshipping withal other Gods and Idols And we shall conclude this with the Testimony of Josephus Acosta Hoc commune apud omnes penè Barbaros est ut Deum quidem Omnium rerum Supremum summè Bonum fateantur Spirituum vero quorundam perversorum non obscura opinio sit qui à nostris Barbaris Zupay vocari solent Igitur quis ille Summus idemque Sempiternus rerum omnium Opifex quem illi ignorantes colunt per omnia doceri debent mox quantum ab illo illiusque fidelibus Ministris Angelis absint gens pessima Cacodaemonum This is common almost to all the Barbarians to confess one Supreme God over all who is perfectly Good as also they have a Perswasion amongst them of certain Evil Spirits which are called by our Barbarians Zupay Wherefore they ought to be first well instructed what that Supreme and Eternal Maker of all things is whom they ignorantly worship and then how great a difference there is betwixt those wicked Daemons and his faithful Ministers the Angels XXVIII It hath been already declared that according to Themistius and Symmachus two zealous Pagans One and the same Supreme God was worshipped in all the several Pagan Religions throughout the world though after different manners Which Diversity of Religions as in their opinion it was no way inconvenient in it self so neither was it Ungrateful nor Unacceptable to Almighty God it being more for his Honour State and Grandeur to be worshipped with this Variety than after one only Manner Now that this was also the opinion of other ancienter Pagans before them may appear from this remarkable Testimony of Plutarch's in his Book De Iside where defending the Egyptian Worship which was indeed the main design of that whole Book but withal declaring that no Inanimate thing ought to be look'd upon or worshipped as a God he writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No Inanimate thing ought to be esteemed for a God but they who bestow these things upon us and afford us a continual supply thereof for our use have been therefore accounted by us Gods Which Gods are not different to different Nations as if the Barbarians and the Greeks the Southern and the Northern Inhabitants of the Globe had not any the same but all other different Gods But as the Sun and the Moon and the Heaven and the Earth and the Sea are common to all though called by several names in several Countries so ONE REASON ordering these things and ONE PROVIDENCE dispensing all and the Inferiour subservient Ministers thereof having had several Names and Honours bestowed upon them by the Laws of several Countreys have been every where worshipped throughout the whole world And there have been also different Symbols consecrated to them the better to conduct and lead on mens undeâ—stâ—ndings to Divine things though this hath not been without some hazard or danger of casting men upon one or other of these Two Inconveniences either Superstition or Atheism Where Plutarch plainly affirms that the Several Religions of the Pagan Nations whether Greeks or Barbarians and among these the Egyptians also as well as others consisted in nothing else but the worshipping of One and the Same Supreme Mind Reason and Providence that orders all things in the world and of its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 its Subservient Powers or Ministers appointed by it over all the several parts of the World though under different Names Rites and Ceremonies and with different Symbols Moreover that Titus Livius was of the very same opinion that the Pagan Gods of several Countreys though called by several Names and worshipped with so great Diversity of Rites and Ceremonies yet were not for all that Different but the same common to all may be concluded from this passage of his where he writeth of Hannibal Nescio an Mirabilior fuerit in adversis quà m secundis rebus Quippe qui mistos ex colluvione omnium gentium quibus alius Ritus alia sacra alii PROPE Dii essent ita uno vinculo copulaverit ut nulla seditio extiterit I know not whether Hannibal were more admirable in his adversity or Prosperity who having a mixt colluvies of all Nations under him which had different Rites different Ceremonies and Almost different Gods from one another did notwithstanding so unite them all together in one common bond that there hapned no sedition at all amongst them Where Livy plainly intimates that though there was as great diversity of Religious Rites and Ceremonies among the Pagans as if they had worshipped several Gods yet the Godâ— of them all were really the same Namely One Supreme God and his Ministers under him And the same Livy elsewhere declares this to have been the General opinion of the Romans and Italians likewise at that time where he tells us how they quarrel'd with Q. Fulvius Flaccus for that when being Censor and building a new Temple in Spain he uncovered another Temple dedicated to Juno Lacinia amongst the Brutii and taking off the Marble-Tyles thereof sent them into Spain to adorn his new erected Temple withal and how they accused him thereupon publickly in the Senate-house in this manner Quod ruinis Templorum Templa aedificaret tanquam non Iidem ubique Dii immortales essent sed spoliis aliorum alii colendi exornandique That with the ruines of Temples he built up Temples as if there were not every where the Same Immortal Gods but that some of them might be worshipped and adorned with the spoils of others The Egyptians were doubtless the most singular of all the Pagans and the most odly discrepant from the rest in their manner of worship yet nevertheless that these also agreed with the rest in those Fundamentals of worshipping one Supreme and Vniversal Numen together with his Inferiour Ministers as Plutarch sets himself industriously to
Gods placed in the â—ighest Aether Plato thinks to be true incorporeal Animal without beginning or end Eternal happy in themselves without any external good The Parent of which Gods who is the Lord and Author of all things and who is alone free from all bonds of doing and suffering why should I go about in words to describe him since Plato who was endued with most Heavenly eloquence equal to the Immortal Gods does often declare that this Highest God by reason of his excess of Majesty is both ineffable and Incomprehensible From which words of Apuleius it is plain that according to him the Twelve Consentes and all the other Invisible Gods were derived from One Original Deity as their Parent and Author But then if you demand what Gods of Plato these should be to which Apuleius would here accommodate the Civil and Poetick Gods contained in those Two Verses of Ennius Juno Vesta Minerva Ceres Diana Venus Mars Mercurius Jovi ' Neptunus Vulcanus Apollo and the rest of this kind that is all their other Gods properly so called Invisible We reply that these are no other than Plato's Ideas or First Paradigms and Patterns of things in the Archetypal World which is the Divine Intellect and his Second Hypostasis derived from his first Original Deity and most Simple Monad For as Plato writeth in his Timaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Sensible World must nâ—eds be the Image of another Intelligible one And again afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What Animal was the Pattern according to whose likeness he that made this great Animal of the World framed it certainly we must not think it to be any Particular Animal since nothing can be perfect which is made according to an imperfect copy Let us therefore conclude it to be that Animal which containeth all other animals in it as its Parts For that Intelligible World containeth all Intelligible Animals in it in the same manner as this Sensible World doth us and other sensible animals Wherefore Plato himself here and elsewhere speaking obscurely of this Intelligible World and the Ideas of it no wonder if many of his Pagan followers have absurdly made so many Distinct Animals and Gods of them Amongst whom Apuleius accordingly would refer all the Civil and Poetick Gods of the Pagans I mean their Gods properly so called Invisible to this Intelligible world of Plato's and those several Ideas of it Neither was Apuleius singular in this but others of the Pagan Theologers did the like as for example Julian in his Book against the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato indeed speaketh of certain Visible Gods the Sun and the Moon and the Stars and the Heaven but these are all but Images of other Invisible Gods that Visible Sun which we see with our eyes is but an Image of another Intelligible and Invisible One so likewise the Visible Moon and every one of the Stars are but the Images and Resemblances of another Moon and of other Stars Intelligible Wherefore Plato acknowledged also these other Invisible Gods inexisting and co-existing with the Demiurgus from whom they were generated and produced That Demiurgus in him thus bespeaking these Invisible and Intelligible Gods Ye Gods of Gods that is Ye Invisible Gods who are the Gods and Causes of the Visible Gods There is one common maker therefore of both these kinds of Gods who first of all made a Heaven Earth Sea Stars in the Intelligible World as the Archetypes Paradigms of these in the Sensible Where S. Cyril in his Confutation writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This our excellent â—â—lian by his Intelligible and Invisible Gods seems here to mean 〈◊〉 ideas which Plato sometimes contends to be Substances and to subsist alone by themselves and sometimes again determineth to be nothing but Notions or Conceptions in the mind of God But however the matter be the skilful in this kind of learning affirm that these Ideas have been rejected by Plato 's own Disciples Aristotle discarding them as Figments or at least such as being meer notions could have no real causality and influence upon things But the meaning of this Pagan Theology may be more fully understood from what the same St. Cyril thus further objecteth against it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sence whereof seems to be this Julian addeth that the God of the Vniverse who made Heaven and Earth is alike the Demiurgus both of these Sensible and of the other Intelligible things If therefore the Ingenit God be alike the Creator of both how can he affirm those things that are Created by him to co-exist with and inexist in him How can that which is created co-exist with the Ingenit God but much less can it inexist in him For we Christians indeed affirm that the Vnmade Word of God doth of necessity co-exist with and inexist in the Father it proceeding from him not by way of Creation but of Generation But this defender of Platonick trifles acknowledging the Supreme God to be Ingenit affirmeth notwithstanding those things which were Made and Created by him to inexist in him thus mingling and confounding all things Where notwithstanding Julian and the Platonick Pagans would in all probability reply that those Ideas of the Intelligible and Archetypal World which is the First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Intellect proceeding from the Highest Hypostasis and Original Deity by way of Necessary and Eternal Emanation are no more to be accounted Creatures than the Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore might with as little absurdity be said to exist With and In the First Original Deity But besides the same Julian elsewhere in that Book of his accommodates this Platonick Notion also to the Pagan Gods in Particular in like manner as Apuleius had done before he writing of Aesculapius after this canting way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Jupiter amongst the Intelligible things generated out of himself Aesculapius and by the Generative Life of the Sun manifested him here upon Earth he coming down from Heaven and appearing in a Humane Form first about Epidaurus and from thence extending his salutary power or vertue over the whole Earth Where Aesculapius is First of all the Eternal Idea of the Medicinal Art or Skill generated by the Supreme God in the Intelligible world which afterward by the Vivifick Influence of the Sun was Incarnated and appeared in a humane form at Epidaurus This is the Doctrine of that Julian who was so great an Opposer of the Incarnation of the Eternal Logos in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Neither was this Doctrine of Many Intelligible Gods and Powers Eternal of which the Archetypal World consisteth first invented by Platonick Pagans after the times of Christianity as some might suspect but that there was such a thing extant before amongst them also may be concluded from this passage of Philo's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though God be but one yet hath he about himself Innumerable Auxiliatory
Trinity was doubtless Anti-Arian or else the Arian Trinity Anti-Platonick the Second and Third Hypostases in the Platonick Trinity being both Eternal Infinite and Immutable And as for those Platonick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gradations so much spoken of these by St. Cyril's leave were of a different Kind from the Arian there being not the Inequality of Creatures in them to the Creator Wherefore Socrates the Ecclesiastick Historian not without Cause wonders how those Two Presbyters Georgius and Timotheus should adhere to the Arian Faction since they were accounted such great Readers of Plato and Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems to me wonderful how those Two Persons should persist in the Arian Perswasion one of them having always Plato in his hands and the other continually breathing Origen Since Plato no where affirmeth his First and Second Cause as he was wont to call them to have had any beginning of their Existence and Origen every where confesseth the Son to be Coeternal with the Father Besides which Another Reason for this Apology of the Christian Platonist was because as the Platonick Pagans after Christianity did approve of the Christian Doctrine concerning the Logos as that which was exactly agreeable with their own so did the Generality of the Christian Fathers before and after the Nicene Council represent the Genuine Platonick Trinity as really the same thing with the Christian or as approaching so near to it that they differed chiefly in Circumstances or the manner of Expression The Former of these is Evident from that famous Passage of Amelius Contemporary with Plotinus recorded by Eusebius St. Cyril and Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this was the Logos or Word by whom Existing from Eternity according to Heraclitus all things were made and whom that Barbarian also placeth in the rank and dignity of a Principle affirming him to have been with God and to be God and that all things were made by him and that whatsoever was made was Life and Being in him As also that he descended into a Body and being cloathed in Flesh appeared as a Man though not without demonstration of the Divinity of his Nature But that afterwards being Loosed or Separated from the same he was Deified and became God again such as he was before he came down into a Mortal Body In which words Amelius speaks favourably also of the Incarnation of that Eternal Logos And the same is further manifest from what St. Austin writeth concerning a Platonist in his time Initium Sancti Evangelii cui nomen est secundum Johannem quidam Platonicus sicut à sancto Sene Simpliciano qui posteà Mediolanensi Ecclesiae praesedit Episcopus solebamus audire aureis Literis conscribendum per omnes Ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat We have often heard from that holy man Simplicianus afterward Bishop of Millain that a certain Platonist affirmed the beginning of St. John 's Gospel deserved to be writ in Letters of Gold and to be set up in all the most Eminent places throughout the Christian Churches And the latter will sufficiently appear from these following Testimonies Justin Martyr in his Apology affirmeth of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That he gave the Second place to the Word of God and the Third to that Spirit which is said to have moved upon the waters Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of that Passage in Plato's Second Epistle to Dionysius concerning the First Second and Third writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I understand this no otherwise than that the Holy Trinity is signified thereby the Third being the Holy Ghost and the Second the Son by whom all things were made according to the Will of the Father Origen also affirmeth the Son of God to have been plainly spoken of by Plato in his Epistle to Hermias and Coriscus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus who pretendeth to know all things and who citeth so many other passages out of Plato doth purposely as I suppose dissemble and conceal that which he wrote concerning the Son of God in his Epistle to Hermias and Coriscus where he calls him the God of the whole Vniverse and the Prince of all things both present and future afterwards speaking of the Father of this Prince and Cause And again elsewhere in that Book he writeth to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither would Celsus here speaking of Chistians making Christ the Son of God take any notice of that passage in Plato 's Epistle before mentioned concerning the Framer and Governour of the whole world as being the Son of God lest he should be compelled by the Authority of Plato whom he so often magnifieth to agree with this Doctrine of ours that the Demiurgus of the whole World is the Son of God but the First and Supreme Deity his Father Moreover St. Cyprian or who ever were the Author of the Book inscribed De Spiritu Sancto affirmeth the Platonists First and Vniversal Psyche to be the same with the Holy Ghost in the Christian Theology in these words Hujus Sempiterna Virtus Divinitas cum in propria natura ab Inquisitoribus Mundi antiquis Philosophis propriè investigari non posset Subtilissimis tamen intuiti conjecturis Compositionem Mundi distinctis Elementorum affectibus praesentem omnibus Animam adfuisse dixerunt quibus secundum genus ordinem singulorum vitam praeberet motum intransgressibiles figeret Metas Stabilitatem assignaret Vniversam hanc Vitam hunc motum hanc rerum Essentiam Animam Mundi vocaverunt In the next place Eusebius Caesariensis gives a full and clear Testimony of the Concordance and Agreement of the Platonick at least as to the main with the Christian Trinity which he will have to have been the Cabala of the ancient Hebrews thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Oracles of the Hebrews placing the Holy Ghost after the Father and the Son in the Third Rank and acknowledging a Holy and Blessed Trinity after this manner so as that this Third Power does also transcend all Created Nature and is the First of those Intellectual Substances which proceed from the Son and the Third from the First Cause see how Plato Enigmatically declareth the same things in his Epistle to Dionysius in these words c. These things the Interpreters of Plato refer to a First God and to a Second Cause and to a Third the Soul of the World which they call also The Third God And the Divine Scriptures in like manner rank the Holy Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost in the place or degree of a Principle But it is most observable what Athanasius himself affirmeth of the Platonists that though they derived the Second Hypostasis of their Trinity from the First and the Third from the Second yet they supposed both their Second and Third Hypostases to be Vncreated and therefore does he send the Arians to
Professed the acknowledgment of One Sovereign Deity and that not the Sun neither but the maker thereof proved from Eubulus in Porphyry Page 285 286 Zoroasters Supreme God Oromasdes Page 287 Of the Triplasian Mithras Page 288 The Magick or Chaldaick Trinity Page 289 The Zoroastrian Trinity Oromasdes Mithras and Arimanes Thus the Persian Arimanes no Substantial Evil Principle or Independent God Page 290 Concerning the Reputed Magick or Chaldaick Oracles Page 292 293 XVII That Orpheus Commonly called by the Greeks The Theologer and the Father of the Grecanick Polytheism clearly asserted One Supreme Numen The History of Orpheus not a meer Romance Page 294 295 Whether Orpheus were the Father of the Poems called Orphical Page 296 297 Orpheus his Polytheism Page 298 That Orpheus notwithstanding asserted a Divine Monarchy Proved from Orphick Verses Recorded by Pagans There being other Orphick Verses Counterfeit Page 300 301 In what sense Orpheus and other Mystical Theologers amongst the Pagans called God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hermaphrodite or of both Sexes Male and Female together Page 304 Orpheus his Recantation of his Polytheism a Fable He at the same time acknowledging both One Unmade God and Many Generated Gods and Goddesses Page 305 That besides the Opinion of Monarchy a Trinity of Divine Hypostases subordinate was also another Part of the Orphick Cabbala Orpheus his Trinity Phanes Uranus and Chronus Page 306 The Grand Arcanum of the Orphick Theology that God is All things but in a different sense from the Stoicks Page 306 307 God's being All made a Foundation of Pagan Polytheism and Idolatry Page 308 XVIII That the Egyptians themselves the most Polytheistical of all Nations had an Acknowledgment amongst them of One Supreme Deity The Egyptians the First Polytheists That the Greeks and Europeans derived their Gods from them and as Herodotus affirmeth their very Names too A Conjecture that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Tutelar God of the City Sais a Colony whereof the Athenians are said to have been And that Neptune the Roman Sea-god was derived from the Egyptian Nephthus signifying the Maritime parts Of the Egyptians worshipping Brute Animals Page 309 310 Notwithstanding this multifarious Polytheism and Idolatry of the Egyptians that they had an Acknowledgment of One Supreme God probable First from that great Fame which they had for their Wisedom Egypt a School of Literature before Greece Page 311 The Egyptians though Attributing more Antiquity to the World than they ought yet of all Nations the most constant Asserters of the Cosmogonia or Novity and Beginning of the World Nor did they think the World to have been made by Chance as the Epicureans Simplicius calling the Mosaick History of the Creation an Egyptian Fable Page 312 313 That besides the Pure and Mixt Mathematicks the Egyptians had another Higher Philosophy appears from hence because they were the first Asserters of the Immortality and Transmigration of Souls which Pythagoras from them derived into Greece Certain therefore that the Egyptians held Incorporeal Substance Page 313 314 That the Egyptians besides their Vulgar and Fabulous had another Arcane and Recondite Theology Their Sphinges and Harpocrates or Sigalions in their Temples Page 314 315 This Arcane Theology of the Egyptians concealed from the Vulgar two manner of ways by Allegories and Hieroglyphicks This doubtless a kind of Metaphysicks concerning God as One Perfect Being the Original of all things Page 316 An Objection from Chaeremon cited by Porphyrius in an Epistle to Anebo an Egyptian Priest fully answered by Iamblichus in the Person of Abammo in his Egyptian Mysteries Page 317 318 That Monarchy was an Essential Part of the Arcane and True Theology of the Egyptians may be proved from the Trismegistick Writings though not all Genuine as the Poemander and Sermon in the Mount concerning Regeneration Because though they had been all Forged by Christians never so much yet being divulged in those Ancient times they must needs have something of Truth in them this at least That the Egyptians acknowledged One Supreme Deity or otherwise they would have been presently Exploded Page 319 320 That Casaubon from the Detection of Forgery in two or three at most of these Trismegistick Books does not Reasonably infer them to have been all Christian Cheats those also not Excepted that have been cited by Ancient Fathers but since lost Page 320 321 That there was one Theuth or Thoth called by the Greeks Hermes an Inventor of Letters and Sciences amongst the Ancient Egyptians not reasonably to be doubted Besides whom there is said to have been a Second Hermes sirnamed Trismegist who left many Volumes of Philosophy and Theology behind him that were committed to the Custody of the Priests Page 321 c. Other Books also written by Egyptian Priests in several Ages successively called Hermaical as Iamblichus informeth us because Entitled Pro more to Hermes as the President of Learning Page 322 That some of those old Hermaick Books remained in the Custody of the Egyptian Priests till the times of Clemens Alexandrinus Page 323 Hermaick Books taken notice of formerly not onely by Christians but also by Pagans and Philosophers Iamblichus his Testimony of them that they did Really contain Hermaical Opinions or Egyptian Learning Fifteen of these Hermaick Books published together at Athens before S. Cyril's time Page 324 325 All the Philosophy of the Present Hermaick Books not meerly Grecanick as Casaubon affirmeth That Nothing perisheth old Egyptian Philosophy derived by Pythagoras together with the Transmigration of Souls into Greece Page 326 327 The Asclepian Dialogue or Perfect Oration said to have been translated into Latin by Apuleius vindicated from being a Christian Forgery Page 328 An answer to two Objections made against it the latter whereof from a Prophecy taken notice of by S. Austin That the Temples of the Egyptian Gods should shortly be full of the Sepulchres of dead men ibid. Petavius his further Suspicion of Forgery because as Lactantius and S. Austin have affirmed the Christian Logos is herein called a Second God and the First begotten Son of God The Answer that Lactantius and S. Austin were clearly Mistaken this being there affirmed onely of the Visible and Sensible World Page 329 330 That besides the Asclepian Dialogue others of the present Trismegistick Books contain Egyptian Doctrine Nor can they be all proved to be Spurious and Counterfeit This the rather insisted on for the Vindication of the Ancient Fathers Page 331 332 Proved that the Egyptians besides their Many Gods acknowledged One First Supreme and Universal Deity from the Testimonies of Plutarch Horus Apollo Iamblichus affirming that Hermes derived all things even Matter it self from One Divine Principle lastly of Damascius declaring that the Egyptian Philosophers at that time had found in the Writings of the Ancients That they held One Principle of all things Praised under the name of the Unknown Darkness Page 334 c. The same
Religion not fit for the Vulgar to know Varro's Supreme Numen the great Soul or Mind of the whole World his Inferiour Gods Parts of the World Animated image-Image-Worship Condemned by him as disagreeable to the Natural Theology Page 438 439 Seneca a Pagan Polytheist but plain asserter of One Supreme Numen excellently described by him That in his Book of Superstition now lost he did as freely Censure the Civil Theology of the Romans as Varro had done the Fabulous or Theatrical Page 440 Quintilian Pliny Apuleius their clear acknowledgments of One Sovereign Universal Deity Symmachus a great stickler for Paganism his Assertion That it was One and the Same thing which was Worshipped in all Religions though in different ways Page 440 441 The Writer De Mundo though not Astotle yet a Pagan His Cause that conteineth All things and God from whom all things are Which Passage being left out in Apuleius his Latin Version gives occasion of suspicion that he was infected with Plutarch's Ditheism or at least held Matter to be Unmade Page 442 Plutarch a Priest of Apollo however unluckily ingaged in those Two False Opinions of an Evil Principle and Matter Unmade yet a Maintainer of One Sole Principle of all Good Page 443 Dio Chrysostomus a Sophist his clear Testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the whole World was under a Kingly Government or Monarchy ibid. Galen's True Hymn to the praise of him that made us in his Book De usu Partium Page 444 Maximus Tyrius his short Account of his own Religion One Supreme God the Monarch of the whole World and Three Subordinate Ranks of Inferiour Gods the Sons and Friends of God and his Ministers in the Government of the World Page 444 445 A most full and Excellent Description of the Supreme God in Aristides his First Oration or Hymn to Jupiter wherein he affirmeth all the several kinds of Gods to be but a Defluxion and Derivation from Jupiter Page 445 446 All the Latter Philosophers after Christianity though maintainers of the Worlds Eternity yet agreed in One Supreme Deity the Cause of this World and of the other Gods Excellent Speculations in them concerning the Deity especially Plotinus who though deriving Matter and all from One Divine Principle yet was a Contender for Many Gods he supposing the Grandeur and Majesty of the Supreme God to be declared by the Multitude of Gods under him Themistius That the Same Supreme God was worshipped by Pagans Christians and all Nations though in different Forms and that God was delighted with this Variety of Religions Page 446 447 The full Testimony of S. Cyril That the Greek Philosophers universally acknowledged One God the Maker of the Universe from whom were produced into Being certain other Gods both Intelligible and Sensible ibid. XXVII This not onely the Opinion of Philosophers and Learned men but also the General Belief of the Vulgar amongst the Pagans A Judgment of the Vulgar and Generality to be made from the Poets Dio Chrysost. his Affirmation That all the Poets acknowledged One First and Greatest God the Father of all the Rational Kind and the King thereof Page 447 The Testimony of Aristotle That all men acknowledged Kingship or Monarchy amongst the Gods of Maximus Tyrius That notwithstanding so great a Discrepancy of Opinion in other things yet throughout all the Gentile World as well the Unlearned as Learned did universally agree in this That there was One God the King and Father of all and Many Gods the Sons of that One God Of Dio Chrysostomus also to the same purpose he intimating likewise that of the two the acknowledgment of the One Supreme God was more General than that of the Many Inferiour Gods Page 448 Page 449 That the sense of the Vulgar Pagans herein is further evident from hence because all Nations had their several Proper Names for the One Supreme God as the Romans Jupiter the Greeks Zeus the Africans and Arabians Hammon the Scythians Pappaeus the Babylonians Bel c. Page 449 True that Origen though allowing Christians to use the Appellative Names for God in the Languages of the several Nations yet accounted it unlawfull for them to call him by those Proper Names because not onely given to Idols but also contaminated with wicked Rites and Fables according to which they should be judged rather the Names of a Daemon than of a God Notwithstanding which he does not deny those Pagans ever to have meant the Supreme God by them but often acknowledge the same But Lactantius indeed denies the Capitoline Jupiter to be the Supreme God and that for two Reasons First because he was not worshipped without the Partnership of Minerva and Juno his Daughter and Wife Granted here that there was a Mixture of the Fabulous or Poetical Theology with the Natural to make up the Civil But that Wise men understood these to be but Three several Names or Notions of One Supreme God This confirmed from Macrobius Page 450 Vossius his Conjecture that in this Capitoline Trinity there was a further Mystery aimed at of Three Divine Hypostases This Roman Trinity derived from the Samothracian Cabiri Which word being Hebraical gives Cause to suspect this Tradition of a Trinity amongst the Pagans to have sprung from the Hebrews Page 451 Lactantius his Second Reason Because Jupiter being Juvans Pater was a name below the Dignity of the Supreme God The Answer that the true Etymon thereof was Jovis Pater the Hebrew Tetragrammaton ibid. That the Capitoline Jupiter was the Supreme God evident from those Titles of Optimus Maximus and of Omnipotens by the Pontifices in their Publick Sacrifices Seneca's Testimony that the ancient Hetrurians by Jupiter meant the Mind and Spirit Maker and Governour of the whole World The Roman Souldiers Acclamation in Marcus Aurelius his German Expedition To Jove the God of Gods who alone is Powerfull according to Tertullian a Testimony to the Christians God Page 452 453 That as the Learned Pagans in their Writings so likewise the Vulgar in their common Speech when most serious often used the word God Singularly and Emphatically for the Supreme proved from Tertullian Minucius Felix and Lactantius together with the Testimony of Proclus that the One Supreme God was more universally believed throughout the World than the Many Gods Page 453 454 That Kyrie Eleeson was anciently a Pagan Litany to the Supreme God proved from Arianus The Supreme God often called by the Pagans also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Lord. Page 454 455 That even the most sottishly Superstitious Idolatrous and Polytheistical amongst the Pagans did notwithstanding generally acknowledge One Supreme Deity fully attested and elegantly declared by Aurelius Prudentius in his Apotheosis Page 455 However some of the Ancient Pagans were said to have acknowledged none but Visible and Corporeal Gods yet as they conceived these to be endued with Life and Understanding so did they suppose One Supreme amongst them as either the whole Heaven or
Chapter that the Upshot of that Pythagorick Doctrine That Nothing could be Generated out of Nothing preexisting amounted to those Two things mentioned viz. the Asserting of the Incorporiety and Ingenerability of Souls and the Rejecting of those Phantastick Entities of Forms and Real Qualities of Bodies and resolving all Corporeal Phaenomena into Figures or Atoms and the different Apparitions or Phancies caused by them but the latter of these may be further confirmed from this passage of Aristotle's where after he had declared that Democritus and Leucippus made the Soul and Fire to consist of round Atoms or Figures like those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those Ramenta that appear in the Air when the Sun-beams are transmitted through Cranies he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that which is said amongst the Pythagoreans seems to have the same sence for some of them affirm that the Soul is those very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ramenta or Atoms but others of them that it is That which Moves them which latter doubtless were the genuine Pythagoreans However it is plain from hence that the old Pythagoreans Physiologized by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as Democritus that is Figures and Atoms and not Qualities and Forms But Aristotle's Materialists on the contrary taking it for granted that Matter or Extended Bulk is the only Substance and that the Qualities and Forms of Bodies are Entities really distinct from those Modifications of Magnitude Figure Site Motion or Rest and finding also by experience that these were continually Generated and Corrupted as likewise that Life Sense and Understanding were produced in the Bodies of such Animals where it had not been before and again extinguished at the Death or Corruption of them concluded that the Souls of all Animals as well as those other Qualities and Forms of Bodies were Generated out of the Matter and Corrupted again into it and consequently that every thing that is in the whole World besides the Substance of Matter was Made or Generated and might be again Corrupted Of this Atheistick Doctrine Aristotle speaks elsewhere as in his Book de Coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some who affirm that Nothing is Ingenerable but that all things are Made as Hesiod especially and also among the rest they who First Physiologized whose meaning was that all other things are Made or Generated and did Flow none of them having any Stability only that there was one thing namely Matter which always remained out of which all those other things were transformed and Metamorphiz'd Though as to Hesiod Aristotle afterwards speaks differently So likewise in his Physicks after he had declared that some of the Ancients made Air some Water and some other Matter the Principle of all things he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This they affirmed to be all the Substance or Essence that was but all other things the Passions Affections and Dispositions of it and that this therefore was Eternal as being capable of no Change but all other things Infinitely Generated and Corrupted XV. But these Materialists being sometimes assaulted by the other Italick Philosophers in the manner before declared That no Real Entities distinct from the Modifications of any Substance could be Generated or Corrupted because Nothing could come from Nothing nor go to Nothing they would not seem plainly to Contradict that Theorem but only endeavoured to interpret it into a compliance with their own Hypothesis and distinguish concerning the Sence of it in this manner That it ought to be understood only of the Substance of Matter and Nothing else viz. That no Matter could be Made or Corrupted but that all other things whatsoever not only Forms and Qualities of Bodies but also Souls Life Sense and Understanding though really different from Magnitude Figure Site and Motion yet ought to be accounted only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Passions and Accidents of this Matter and therefore might be generated out of it and Corrupted again into it and that without the Production or Destruction of any real Entity Matter being the only thing that is accounted such All this we learn from these words of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sence whereof is this And therefore as to that Axiom of some Philosophers That Nothing is either Generated or Destroyed these Materialists admit it to be true in respect of the Substance of matter only which is always preserved the same As say they We do not say that Socrates is simply or absolutely Made when he is made either Handsom or Musical or that he is Destroyed when he loseth those Dispositions because the Subject Socrates still remains the same so neither are we to say that any thing else is absolutely ether Generated or Corrupted because the Substance or Matter of every thing always Continues For there must needs be some certain Nature from which all other things are Generated that still remaining one and the same We have noted this Passage of Aristotle's the rather because this is just the very Doctrine of Atheists at this day That the Substance of Matter or Extended Bulk is the only Real Entity and therefore the only Unmade thing that is neither Generable nor Creatable but Necessarily Existent from Eternity But whatever else is in the World as Life and Animality Soul and Mind being all but Accidents and Affections of this Matter as if therefore they had no Real Entity at all in them are Generable out of Nothing and Corruptible into Nothing so long as the Matter in which they are still remains the same The Result of which is no less than this That there can be no other Gods or God than such as was at first Made or Generated out of Sensless Matter and may be Corrupted again into it And here indeed lies the Grand Mystery of Atheism that every thing besides the Substance of Matter is Made or Generated and may be again Unmade or Corrupted However Anaxagoras though an Ionick Philosopher and therefore as shall be declared afterward Successor to those Atheistick Materialists was at length so far Convinced by that Pythagorick Doctrine That no Entity could be naturally Generated out of Nothing as that he departed from his Predecessors herein and did for this reason acknowledge Mind and Soul that is all Cogitative Being to be a Substance really distinct from Matter neither Generable out of it nor Corruptible into it as also that the Forms and Qualities of Bodies which he could not yet otherwise conceive of than as things really distinct from those Modifications of Magnitude Figure Site and Motion must for the same cause pre-exist before Generations in certain Similar Atoms and remain after Corruptions being only Secreted and Concreted in them By means whereof he introduced a certain Spurious Atomism of his own For whereas the Genuine Atomists before his time had supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dissimilar Atoms devoid of all Forms and Qualities to be the Principles of all Bodies Anaxagoras substituted in
the room of them his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Similar Atoms endued from Eternity with all Manner of Forms and Qualities Incorruptibly XVI We have made it manifest that those Material Philosophers described by Aristotle were absolute Atheists not merely because they made Body to be the only Substance though that be a thing which Aristotle himself justly reprehends them for also in these words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who suppose the World to be one uniform thing and acknowledge only one nature as the matter and this Corporeal or indued with Magnitude it is evident that they erre many ways and particularly in this that they set down only the Elements of Bodies and not of Incorporeal things though there be also things Incorporeal I say we have not concluded them Atheists merely for this reason because they denied Incorporeal Substance but because they deduced all things whatsoever from Dead and Stupid Matter and made every thing in the World besides the bare Substance of Matter devoid of all Quality Generable and Corruptible Now we shall take notice of an Objection made by some late Writers against this Aristotelick Accusation of the old Philosophers founded upon a passage of Aristotle's own who elsewhere in his Book De Coelo speaking of the Heaven or World plainly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all the Philosophers before himself did assert the World to have been Made or have had a Beginning From whence these Writers infer that therefore they must needs be all Theists and hold the Divine Creation of the World and consequently that Aristotle contradicts himself in representing many of them as Atheists acknowledging only one Material Principle of the whole Universe without any Intending or Efficient Cause But we cannot but pronounce this to be a great Errour in these Writers to conclude all those who held the World to have been Made therefore to have been Theists whereas it is certain on the contrary that all the First and most Ancient Atheists did in Aristotle's language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Make or Generate the World that is suppose it not to have been from Eternity but to have had a Temporary Beginning as likewise that it was Corruptible and would sometime or other have an End again The sence of which Atheistick Philosophers is represented by Lucretius in this manner Et quoniam docui Mundi Mortalia Templa Esse Nativo consistere Corpore Coelum Et quaecunque in eo siunt fientque necess◠Esse ea Dissolvi And there seems to be indeed a Necessity in reason that they who derive all things from a Fortuitous Principle and hold every thing besides the Substance of Matter to have been Generated should suppose the World to have been Generated likewise as also to be Corruptible Wherefore it may well be reckoned for one of the Vulgar Errours That all Atheists held the Eternity of the World Moreover when Aristotle subjoins immediately after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that though the Ancient Philosophers all held the World to have been Made yet notwithstanding they were divided in this that some of them supposed for all that that it would continue to Eternity such as it is others that it would be Corrupted again the former of these who conceived the World to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Made but Eternal were none of them Atheists but all Theists Such as Plato whom Aristotle seems particularly to perstringe for this who in his Timaeus introduceth the Supreme Deity bespeaking those Inferiour Gods the Sun Moon and Stars supposed by that Philosopher to be Animated after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those things which are made by me are Indissoluble by my will and though every thing which is compacted be in its own nature dissolvable yet it is not the part of one that is good to will the dissolution or destruction of any thing that was once well made Wherefore though you are not absolutely Immortal nor altogether Indissolvable yet notwithstanding you shall not be dissolved nor ever die My will being a stronger Band to hold you together than any thing else can be to loosen you Philo and other Theists followed Plato in this asserting that though the world was Made yet it would never be Corrupted but have a Post-eternity Whereas all the Ancient Atheists namely those who derived the Original of things from Nature and Fortune did at once deny both Eternities to the World Past and Future Though we cannot say that none but Atheists did this for Empedocles and Heraclitus and afterward the Stoicks did not only suppose the World likewise Generated and to be again Corrupted but also that this had been and would be done over and over again in Infinite vicissitudes Furthermore as the World's Eternity was generally opposed by all the Ancient Atheists so it was maintained also by some Theists and that not only Aristotle but also before him by Ocellus Lucanus at least though Aristotle thought not fit to take any notice of him as likewise the latter Platonists universally went that way yet so as that they always supposed the World to have as much depended upon the Deity as if it had been once Created out of Nothing by it To conclude therefore neither they who asserted the world's Generation and Temporary Beginning were all Theists nor they who maintained its Eternity all Atheists but before Aristotle's time the Atheists universally and most of the Theists did both alike conclude the World to have been Made the difference between them lying in this that the one affirmed the World to have been Made by God the other by the Fortuitous Motion of Matter Wherefore if we would put another difference betwixt the Theists and Atheists here as to this particular we must distinguish betwixt the System of the World and the Substance of the Matter For the Ancient Atheists though they generally denied the Eternity of the World yet they supposed the Substance of the Matter not only to have been Eternal but also Self-existent and Independent upon any other Being they making it the first Principle and Original of all things and consequently the only Numen Whereas the Genuine Theists though many of them maintained the Worlds Eternity yet they all concluded both the Form and Substance of it to have always depended upon the Deity as the Light doth upon the Sun The Stoicks with some others being here excepted XVII Aristotle tells us some were of opinion that this Atheistick Philosophy which derives all things from sensless and stupid Matter in the way of Forms and Qualities was of great Antiquity and as old as any Records of Time amongst the Greeks and not only so but also that the Ancient Theologers themselves entertained it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some who conceive that even the most ancient of all and the most remote from this present Generation and they also who first Theologized did Physiologize after this
be look'd upon as the Rising Sun of Atheism Et tanquam Spes altera Trojae it seeming to smile upon them and flatter them at a distance with some fairer hopes of supporting that Ruinous and Desperate Cause Whereas on the Contrary that other Atomick Atheism as it insists upon a True Notion of Body that it is nothing but Resisting Bulk by which means we joyning issue thereupon shall be fairly conducted on to a clear Decision of this present Controversie as likewise to the disintangling of many other points of Philosophy so it is that which hath filled the World with the Noise of it for Two Thousand years past that concerning which several Volumes have been formerly written in which it hath been stated and brought into a kind of System and which hath of late obteined a Resurrection amongst us together with the Atomick Physiology and been recommended to the World anew under a Specious Shew of Wit and profound Philosophy Wherefore as we could not here insist upon both these Forms of Atheism together because that would have been to confound the Language of Atheists and to have made them like the Cadmean Off-spring to do immediate Execution upon themselves so we were in all reason obliged to make our First and Principal Assault upon the Atomick Atheism as being the only considerable upon this accompt because it is that alone which publickly confronts the World and like that proud Vncircumcised Philistine openly defies the Hosts of the Living God Intending nevertheless in the Close of this whole Discourse that is the Last Book where we are to determine the Right Intellectual System of the Vniverse and to assert an Incorporeal Deity to demonstrate That Life Cogitation and Vnderstanding do not Essentially belong to Matter and all Substance as such but are the Peculiar Attributes and Characteristicks of Substance Incorporeal XXXVI However since we have now started these Several Forms of Atheism we shall not in the mean time neglect any of them neither For in the Answer to the Second Atheistick Ground we shall Confute them all together at once as agreeing in this One Fundamental Principle That the Original of all things in the Vniverse is Sensless Matter or Matter devoid of all Animality or Conscious Life In the Reply to the Fourth Atheistick Argumentation we shall briefly hint the Grounds of Reason from which Incorporeal Substance is Demonstrated In the Examination of the Fifth we shall confute the Anaximandrian Atheism there propounded which is as it were the First Sciography and Rude Delineation of Atheism And in the Confutation of the Sixth we shall shew how the ancient Atomick Atheists did preventively overtherthrow the Foundation of Hylozoism Besides all which in order to a Fuller and more Thorough Confutation both of the Cosmo-plastick and Hylozoick Atheism we shall in this very place take occasion to insist largely upon the Plastick life of Nature giving in the First Place a True Accompt of it and then afterwards shewing how grosly it is misunderstood and the Pretence of it abused by the Asserters of both these Atheistick Hypotheses The Heads of which Larger Digression because they could not be so conveniently inserted in the Contents of the Chapter shall be represented to the Readers View at the End of it XXXVII For we think fit here to observe that neither the Cosmo-plastick or Stoical nor the Hylozoick or Stratonical Atheists are therefore condemned by us because they suppose such a thing as a Plastick Nature or Life distinct from the Animal albeit this be not only exploded as an Absolute Non-entity by the Atomick Atheists who might possibly be afraid of it as that which approached too near to a Deity or else would hazard the introducing of it but also utterly discarded by some Professed Theists of later times who might notwithstanding have an Undiscerned Tang of the Mechanick Atheism hanging about them in that their so confident rejecting of all Final and Intending Causality in Nature and admitting of no other Causes of things as Philosophical save the Material and Mechanical only This being really to banish all Mental and consequently Divine Causality quite out of the World and to make the whole World to be nothing else but a mere Heap of Dust Fortuitously agitated or a Dead Cadaverous thing that hath no Signatures of Mind and Vnderstanding Counsel and Wisdom at all upon it nor indeed any other Vitality acting in it than only the Production of a certain Quantity of Local Motion and the Conservation of it according to some General Laws which things the Democritick Atheists take for granted would all be as they are though there were no God And thus Aristotle describes this kind of Philosophy That it made the whole World to consist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of nothing but Bodies and Monads that is Atoms or Small Particles of Matter only ranged and disposed together into such an order but altogether Dead and Inanimate 2. For unless there be such a thing admitted as a Plastick Nature that acts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the sake of something and in order to Ends Regularly Artificially and Methodically it seems that one or other of these Two Things must be concluded That Either in the Efformation and Organization of the Bodies of Animals as well as the other Phenomena every thing comes to pass Fortuitously and happens to be as it is without the Guidance and Direction of any Mind or Vnderstanding Or else that God himself doth all Immediately and as it were with his own Hands Form the Body of every Gnat and Fly Insect and Mite as of other Animals in Generations all whose Members have so much of Contrivance in them that Galen professed he could never enough admire that Artifice which was in the Leg of a Fly and yet he would have admired the Wisdom of Nature more had he been but acquainted with the Use of Microscopes I say upon supposition of no Plastick Nature one or other of these Two things must be concluded because it is not conceived by any that the things of Nature are all thus administred with such exact Regularity and Constancy every where merely by the Wisdom Providence and Efficiency of those Inferior Spirits Daemons or Angels As also though it be true that the Works of Nature are dispensed by a Divine Law and Command yet this is not to be understood in a Vulgar Sence as if they were all effected by the mere Force of a Verbal Law or Outward Command because Inanimate things are not Commandable nor Governable by such a Law and therefore besides the Divine Will and Pleasure there must needs be some other Immediate Agent and Executioner provided for the producing of every Effect since not so much as a Stone or other Heavy Body could at any time fall downward merely by the Force of a Verbal Law without any other Efficient Cause but either God himself must immediately impel it or else there must be some other subordinate Cause in
and whole World are thus Artificially Ordered and Disposed 24. Now whereas Aristotle in the forecited Words tells us that we partake of Life and Understanding from that in the Universe after the same manner as we partake of Heat and Cold from that Heat and Cold that is in the Universe It is observable that this was a Notion borrowed from Socrates as we understand both from Xenophon and Plato that Philosopher having used it as an Argumentation to prove a Deity And the Sence of it is represented after this manner by the Latin Poet Principio Coelum ac Terram Campósque Liquentes Lucentémque Globum Lunae Titaniáque Astra Spiritus intus alit totósque Infusa per Artus Mens agitat Molem Magno se Corpore miscet Inde Hominum Pecudúmque Genus Vitaeque Volantûm From whence it may be collected that Aristotle did suppose this Plastick Nature of the Vniverse to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Either Part of some Mundane Soul that was also Conscious and Intellectual as that Plastick Nature in Animals is or at least some Inferiour Principle depending on such a Soul And indeed whatever the Doctrine of the modern Peripateticks be we make no doubt at all but that Aristotle himself held the Worlds Animation or a Mundane Soul Forasmuch as he plainly declares himself concerning it elsewhere in his Book De Coelo after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we commonly think of the Heavens as nothing else but Bodies and Monads having only a certain Order but altogether inaâ—imate whâ—râ—as we ought on the contrary to conceive of them as partaking of Life and Action that is as being endued with a Rational or Intellectual Life For so Simplicius there rightly expounds the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we ought to think of the Heavens as Animated with a Rational Soul and thereby partaking of Action and Rational Life For saith he though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be affirmed not only of Irrational Souls but also of Inanimate Bodies yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does only denominate Rational Beings But further to take away all manner of scruple or doubt concerning this business that Philosopher before in the same Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Heaven is Animated and hath a Principle of Motion within it self Where by the Heaven as in many other places of Aristotle and Plato is to be understood the Whole World There is indeed One Passage in the same Book De Coelo which at first sight and slightly considered may seem to contradict this again and therefore probably is that which hath led many into a contrary Perswasion that Aristotle denied the Worlds Animation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is not reasonable neither to think that the Heavens continue to Eternity moved by a Soul necessitating or violently compelling them Nor indeed is it possible that the Life of such a Soul should be pleasurable or happy Forasmuch as the continual Violent Motion of a Body naturally inclining to move another way must needs be a very unquiet thing and void of all Mental Repose especially when there is no such Relaxation as the Souls of Mortal Animals have by sleep and therefore such a Soul of the World as this must of necessity be condemned to an Eternal Ixionian Fate But in these Words Aristotle does not deny the Heavens to be moved by a Soul of their own which is positively affirmed by him elsewhere but only by such a Soul as should Violently and Forcibly agitate or drive them round contrary to their own Natural Inclination whereby in the mean time they tended downwards of themselves towards the Centre And his sence concerning the Motion of the Heavens is truly represented by Simplicius in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The whole World or Heaven being as well a natural as an Animalish Body is moved properly by Soul but yet by means of Nature also as an Instrument so that the Motion of it is not Violent But whereas Aristotle there insinuates as if Plato had held the Heavens to be moved by a Soul violently contrary to their Nature Simplicius though sufficiently addicted to Aristotle ingenuously acknowledges his Error herein and vindicating Plato from that Imputation shews how he likewise held a Plastick Nature as well as a Mundane Soul and that amongst his Ten Instances of Motion the Ninth is that of Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which always moves another being it self changed by something else as the Tenth that of the Mundane Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which originally both moves it self and other things as if his Meaning in that place were That though Nature be a Life and Internal Energy yet it acts Subserviently to a Higher Soul as the First Original Mover But the Grand Objection against Aristotle's holding the Worlds Animation is still behind namely from that in his Metaphysicks where he determines the Highest Starry Heaven to be moved by an Immoveable Mover commonly supposed to be the Deity it self and no Soul of the World and all the other Spheres likewise to be moved by so many Separate Intelligencies and not by Souls To which we reply that indeed Aristotle's First Immoveable Mover is no Mundane Soul but an Abstract Intellect Separate from Matter and the very Deity it self whose manner of moving the Heavens is thus described by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It Moveth only as being Loved wherefore besides this Supreme Vnmoved Mover that Philosopher supposed another Inferiour Moved Mover also that is a Mundane Soul as the Proper and Immediate Efficient Cause of the Heavenly Motions of which he speaks after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which it self being moved objectively or by Appetite and Desire of the First Good moveth other things And thus that safe and sure-footed Interpreter Alex. Aphrodisius expounds his Masters Meaning That the Heaven being Animated and therefore indeed Moved by an Internal Principle of its own is notwithstanding Originally moved by a certain Immoveable and Separate Nature which is above Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both by its contemplating of it and having an Appetite and Desire of assimilating it self thereunto Aristotle seeming to have borrowed this Notion from Plato who makes the Constant Regular Circumgyration of the Heavens to be an Imitation of the Motion or Energy of Intellect So that Aristotle's First Mover is not properly the Efficient but only the Final and Objective Cause of the Heavenly Motions the Immediate Efficient Cause thereof being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soul and Nature Neither may this be Confuted from those other Aristotelick Intelligences of the Lesser Orbs that Philosopher conceiving in like manner concerning them that they were also the Abstract Minds or Intellects of certain other inferiour Souls which moved their several Respective Bodies or Orbs Circularly and Uniformly in a kind of Imitation of them For this plainly appears from hence in that he
Manicheans both of which though they made some slight Pretences to Christianity yet were not by Christians owned for such But it is certain that besides these and before them too some of the Professed Pagans also entertained the same Opinion that famous Moralist Plutarchus Chaeronensis being an Undoubted Patron of it which in his Book De Iside Osiride he represents with some little difference after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Generation and Constitution of this World is mixt of contrary Powers or Principles the one Good the other Evil yet so as that they are not both of equal force but the Better of them more prevalent notwithstanding standing which it is also absolutely impossible for the Worser Power or Principle to be ever Vtterly destroyed much of it being always intermingled in the Soul and much in the Body of the Vniverse there perpetually tugging against the Better Principle Indeed learned men of later times have for the most part look'd upon Plutarch here but either as a bare Relater of the Opinion of other Philosophers or else as a Follower only and not a Leader in it Notwithstanding which it is evident that Plutarch was himself heartily Engaged in this Opinion he discovering no small fondnâ—ss for it in sundry of his other Writings as for Example in his Platonick Questions where he thus declares himself concerning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or else that which is often affirmed by us is true that a Mad Irrational soul and an unformed disorderly Body did coexist with one another from Eternity neither of them having any Generation or Beginning And in his Timaean Psychogonia he does at large industriosly maintain the same there and elsewhere endeavouring to establish this Doctrine as much as possibly he could upon Rational Foundations As First that Nothing can be Made or Produced without a Cause and therefore there must of necessity be some Cause of Evil also and that a Positive one too he representing the Opinion of those as very ridiculous who would make the Nature of Evil to be but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Accidental Appendix to the World and all that Evil which is in it to have come in only by the by and by Consequence without any Positive Cause Secondly that God being Essentially Good could not possibly be the Cause of Evil where he highly applauds Plato for removing God to the greatest distance imaginable from being the Cause of Evil. Thirdly that as God could not so neither could 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matter in it self devoid of all form and Quality be the Cause of Evil noting this to have been the Subterfuge of the Stoicks Upon which account he often condemns them but uncertainly sometimes as such who affigned No Cause at all of Evils and sometimes again as those who made God the Cause of them For in his Psychogonia he concludes that unless we acknowledge a Substantial Evil Principle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Stoical Difficulties will of necessity overtake and involve us who introduce Euil into the World from Nothing or Without a Cause since neither that which is Essentially Good as God nor yet that which is devoid of all Quality as Matter could possibly give being or Generation to it But in his Book against the Stoicks he accuses them as those who made God Essentially Good the Cause of Evil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Themselves make God being Good the Principle and cause of Evil since Matter which is devoid of Quality and recieves all its Differences from the Active Principle that moves and forms it could not possibly be the Cause thereof Wherefore Evil must of necessity eithercome from Nothing or else it must come from the Active and Moving Principle which is God Now from all these Premises joyned together Plutarch concludes that the Phaenomenon of Evil could no otherwise possibly be salved than by supposing a Substantial Principle for it and a certain Irrational and Maleficent Soul or Daemon Vnmade and Coexisting with God and Matter from Eternity to have been the Cause thereof And accordingly he resolves that as whatsoever is Good in the Soul and Body of the Vniverse and likewise in the Souls of Men and Daemons is to be ascribed to God as its only Original so whatsoever is Evil Irregular and Disorderly in them ought to be imputed to this other Substantial Principle a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Irrational and Maleficent Soul or Daemon which insinuating it sâ—lf every where throughout the World is all along intermingled with the Better Principle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that neither the Soul of the Vniverse nor that of Men and Daemons was wholly the Workmanship of God but the Lower Brutish and Disorderly part of them the Effect of the Evil Principle But besides all this it is evident that Plutarch was also strongly possessed with a Conceit that nothing Substantial could be Created no not by Divine Power out of Nothing Preexisting and therefore that all the Substance of whatsoever is in the World did Exist from Eternity Vnmade so that God was only the Orderer or the Methodizer and Harmonizer thereof Wherefore as he concluded that the Corporeal World was not Created by God out of Nothing as to the Substance of it but only the Preexisting Matter which before moved Disorderly was brought into this Regular Order and Harmony by him In like manner he resolved that the Soul of the World for such a thing is always supposed by him was not made by God out of Nothing neither nor out of any thing Inanimate and Soulless Preexisting but out of a Preexisting Disorderly Soul was brought into an Orderly and Regular Frame 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There was Vnformed Matter before this Orderly World was made which Matter was not Incorporeal nor Vnmoved or Inanimate but Body discomposed and acted by a Furious and Irrational Mover the Deformity whereof was the Disharmony of a Soul in it devoid of Reason For God neither made Body out of that which was No-Body nor Soul out of No-soul But as the Musician who neither makes Voice nor Motion does by ordering of them notwithstanding produce Harmony so God though he neither made the Tangible and Resisting Substance of Body nor the Phantastick and Self-moving Power of Soul yet taking both those Principles preexisting the one of which was Dark and Obscure the other Turbulent and Irrational and orderly disposing and Harmonizing of them he did by that means produce this most beautiful and perfect Animal of the World And further to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God was not the Cause or Maker of Body simply that is neither of Bulk nor Matter but only of that Symmetry and Pulchritude which is in Body and that likeness which it hath to himself Which same ought to be concluded also concerning the Soul of the World that the Substance of it was not made by God neither nor yet that it was
that these together with the World were Generated or had a Beginning And both Laertius and Diodorus represent it as the Opinion of the ancient Egyptians that the World was Generated or had a Temporary Production as also that the Sun and Moon and other Parts of the World were Gods But whereas the same Diodorus writes of certain Egyptian Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which had an Eternal Generation he seems to mean thereby only the Celestial Gods the Sun Moon and Stars as distinct from those other Hero's and Men-Gods which are again thus described by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who though naturally Mortal yet by reason of their Wisdom Vertue and Beneficence toward Mankind had been advanced to Immortality And by this time we think it doth sufficiently appear that the Theogonia of the Ancients is not to be understood merely of their Heroes and Men-gods or of all their Gods as supposed to have been nothing else but Mortal Men Dii Mortalibus nati Matribus as Cotta in Cicero speaks who according to the more Vulgar signification of the Word had been Generated Humano More as some otherwise Learned Men have seemed to suppose but that it extends to all the Inferiour Pagan Gods some whereof were Parts of the Visible World Animated as the Sun Moon Stars and Earth so that their Theogonia was the very same thing with the Cosmogonia or at least a Part thereof Notwithstanding which we deny not but that there was also in the Paganick Fables of the Gods a certain Mixture of History and Herology interserted and complicated all along together with Physiology We are in the next place to observe that both this Theogonia and Cosmogonia of the Ancient Pagans their Generation of the World and Gods is to be understood of a Temporary Production of them whereby they were Made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from an Antecedent Non-existence brought into Being For this was the General Tradition amongst the Pagans that the World was made out of an antecedent Chaos as shall be afterwards further declared And Aristotle affirmeth that before his time this Genesis and Temporary Production of the World had been Universally entertain'd by all and particularly that Plato was an Assertor of the same Nevertheless the generality of the latter Platonists endeavour with all their might to force a contrary sence upon his Timaeus Which is a thing that Plutarch long since observed after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most of Plato 's Followers being infinitely troubled and perplexed in their minds turn themselves every way using all manner of Arts and offering all kind of violence to his Text as conceiving that they ought by all means possible to hide and conceal that Opinion as infand and detestable of the Generation of the World and of the Soul of it so as not to have continued from Eternity or through a succession of Infinite Time Notwithstanding which we conceive it to be undeniably evident that Plato in his Timaeus doth assert the Genesis of the World in this sence to wit of a Temporary Production of it and as not having existed from Eternity or without Beginning First because in the entrance of that Discourse he opposeth these Two things to one another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which alway is and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is Generated or Made and therefore in affirming the World to have been Generated he must needs deny the Eternity thereof Again the Question is so punctually stated by him afterwards as that there is no possibility of any Subterfuge left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether the World always were having no Beginning or Generation or whether it was Made or Generated having commenced from a certain Epocha To which the Answer is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was Made or had a Beginning Moreover this Philosopher there plainly affirms also that Time it self was Made or had a Beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Time was made together with the Heaven that being both Generated together they might be both dissolved together likewise if at least there should ever be any dissolution of them Besides which he plainly declares that before this Orderly World was produced the Matter of it did move disorderly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God taking all that Matter which was not then resting but moving confusedly and disorderly he brought it into Order out of Confusion Which is no more than if he should have said God made this World out of an antecedent Chaos which as we said before was the constant Tradition of the Ancient Pagans Now as to Authority we may well conclude that Aristotle was better able to understand both Plato's Philosophy and Greek than any of those Juniour Platonists who lived hundreds of years after And yet we are not quite destitute of other Suffrages besides Aristotle's neither not only Philo the Jew but also Plutarch and Atticus who were both of them Platonick Pagans voting on this side besides Alexander Aphrodisius a judicious Peripatetick The only Objection considerable is from what Plato himself writes in his Third and Sixth Book of Laws In the former whereof Clinias and the Athenian Hospes discourse together after this manner concerning the Original or First Beginning of Common-wealths 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ath. What beginning shall we say there was of Common-wealths Cl. Whence would your self derive them Ath. I suppose from a great length and Infinity of time through Successive Changes Cl. I understand not well what you mean Ath. Thus therefore Do you think that you are able to determine what Length or Quantity of Time there hath been since Cities and Polities of Men first began Cl. This is by no means easie to be done Ath. Wherefore there is a kind of Infinity and Inestimability of this time Cl. It is very true Ath. Have there not then been Innumerable Cities constituted within this time and as many again destroyed of all several Forms they being changed from Greater to Lesser and from Lesser to Greater from Better to Worser and from Worser to Better Now we say that if Plato intended here to assert an Absolute Infinity of Time Past then it must needs be granted that in his old age when he wrote his Book of Laws he changed his Opinion from what it was before when he wrote his Timaeus and if so he ought in all reason to have retracted the same which he does not here do But in very truth the meaning of this Philosopher in those words cited seems to be this not that there was an Absolute Infinity of Time past as Proclus contends taking advantage of that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but only that the World had lasted such a Length of Time as was in a manner inestimable to us or uncomputable by us there having happened as he addeth in the mean time several Successive Destructions and Consumptions of Mankind by means of various
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
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
these following words Alius eandem matâ—riam mordaciùs scripsit qui erat tum è numero Judicum qui auctor in primis faciendae persecutionis fuit quo scelere non contentus etiam scriptis eos quos afflixerat insecutus est Composuit enim Libellos Duos non Contrà Christianos nè inimicè insectari videretur sed Ad Christianos ut humanè ac benignè consulere videretur In quibus ita falsitatem Scripturae Sacrae arguere conatus est tanquam sibi esset tota contraria Praecipuè tamen Paulum Petrúmque laceravit caeterósque Discipulos tanquam fallaciae seminatores quos eosdem tamen rudes indoctos fuisse testatus est Another hath handled the same matter more smartly who was First himself one of the Judges and a chief Author of the Persecution but being not contented with that wickedness he added this afterwards to persecute the Christians also with his Pen He composing Two Books not inscribed Against the Christians lest he should seem plainly to act the part of an enemy but To the Christians that he might be thought to counsel them humanely and benignly in which he so charges the holy Scripture with Falshood as if it were all nothing else but contradictions but he chiefly lashes Paul and Peter as divulgers of lyes and deceits whom notwithstanding he declares to have been rude and illiterate Persons I say though Hierocles for some cause or other be not named here by Lactantius in these Cited words or that which follows yet it cannot be doubted but that he was the Person intended by him for these Two Reasons First because he tells us afterward that the main business of that Christiano-mastix was to compare Apollonius with our Saviour Christ. Cùm facta Christi mirabilia destrueret nec tamen negaret voluit ostendere Apollonium vel paria vel etiam majora fecisse Mirum quòd Apuleium praetermiserit cujus solent multa mira memorari Et ex hoc insolentiam Christi voluit arguere quòd Deum se constituerit ut ille verecundior fuisse videretur qui cùm majora faceret ut hic putat tamen id sibi non arrogaverit That he might obscure the Miracles of our Saviour Christ which he could not deny he would undertake to show that Equal or greater Miracles were done by Apollonius And it was a wonder he did not mention Apuleius too of whose many and wonderful things the Pagans use to brag likewise Moreover he condemns our Saviour Christ of Insolency for making himself a God affirming Apollonius to have been the modester Person who though he did as he supposes greater miracles yet arrogated no such thing to himself The Second Reason is because Lactantius also expresly mentions the very Title of Hierocles his Book viz. Philalethes Cùm talia ignorantiae suae deliramenta fudisset cùmque Veritatem peniâ—ùs excidere connixus est ausus est Libros suos nefarios ac Dei hostes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 annotare Though pouring out so much folly and madness professedly fighting against the Truth yet he presumed to call these his wicked Books and Enemies of God Philaletheis or Friends to Truth From which words of Lactantius and those foregoing where he affirms this Christiano-mastix to have writen Two Books the Learned Prefacer to the late Edition of Hierocles probably concludes that the whole Title of Hierocles his Book was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I conceive that the First of those Two Books of Hierocles insisted upon such things as Porphyrius had before urged against the Christians but then in the Second he added this de novo of his own to compare Apollonius with our Saviour Christ which Eusebius only takes notice of Wherefore Epiphanius telling us that there was one Hierocles a Presect or Governour of Alexandria in those persecuting times of Diocletian we may probably conclude that this was the very Person described in Lactantius who is said to have been First of the Number of the Judges and a Principal Actor in the Persecution and then afterwards to have written this Philalethes against the Christians wherein besides other things he ventured to compare Apollonius Tyanaeus with our Saviour Christ. Now if this Hierocles who wrote the Philalethes in defence of the Pagan Gods against the Christians were the Author of those two other Philosophick Books the Commentary upon the Golden Verses and that De Fato Providentia it might be easily evinced from both of them that he was notwithstanding an Asserter of One Supreme Deity But Photius tells us that that Hierocles who wrote the Book concerning Fate and Providence did therein make mention of Jamblichus and his Junior Plutarchus Atheniensis from whence Jonsius taking it for granted that it was one and the same Hierocles who wrote against the Christians and de Fato infers that it could not be Eusebius Pamphili who Answered the Philalethes but that it must needs be some other Eusebius much Junior But we finding Hierocles his Philalethes in Lactantius must needs conclude on the contrary that Hierocles the famous Christiano-mastix was not the same with that Hierocles who wrote de Fato Which is further evident from Aenaeas Gazeus in his Theophrastus where first he mentions one Hierocles an Alexandrian that had been his Master whom he highly extols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But tell me I pray you are there yet left amongst you in Aegypt any such Expounders of the Arcane Mysteries of Philosophy as Hierocles our Master was And this we suppose to be that Hierocles who wrote concerning Fate and Providence if not also upon the Golden Verses But afterward upon occasion of Apollonius the Cappadocian or Tyanaean he mentions another Hierocles distinct from the former namely him who had so boasted of Apollonius his Miracles in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Apollonius is convinced of falshood but Hierocles not our Master but he that boasts of the Miracles of Apollonius adds another incredible thing And though it be probable that one of these was the Author of that Commentary upon the Golden Verses for that it should be written by a Christian is but a dream yet we cannot certainly determine which of them it was However that this Hierocles who was the Mastix of Christianity and Champion for The Gods was notwithstanding a professed asserter of one Supreme Deity is clearly manifest also from Lactantius in these following words Quam tandem nobis attulisti Veritatem nisi quod Assertor Deorum eos ipsos ad ultimum prodidisti Prosecutus enim Summi Dei laudes quem Regem quem Maximum quem Opificem rerum quem Fontem bonorum quem Parentem omnium quem Factorem Altorémque viventium confessus es ademisti Jovi tuo Regnum eúmque Summa potestate depulsum in Ministrorum numerum redigisti Epilogus ergo te tuus arguit Stultitiae Vanitatis Erroris Affirmas Deos esse illos tamen subjicis mancipas
ei Deo cujus Religionem conaris evertere Though you have entitled your Book Philalethes yet what Truth have you brought us therein unless only this that being an Asserter of the Gods contradicting your self you have at last betrayed those very Gods For in the close of your Book prosecuting the praises of the Supreme God and confessing him to be the King the Greatest the Opifex of the World the Fountain of Good the Parent of all things the Maker and Conserver of all Living beings you have by this means dethroned your Jupiter and degrading him from his Sovereign Power reduced him into the rank of Inferiour Ministers Wherefore your Epilogue argues you guilty of Folly Vanity and Error in that you both assert Gods and yet subject and mancipate them under that one God whose Religion you endeavour to overthrow Where we must confess we understand not well Lactantius his Logick forasmuch as Hierocles his Zeus or Jupiter was one and the same with his Supreme God as is also here intimated and though he acknowledged all the other Gods to be but his Inferiour Ministers yet nevertheless did he contend that these ought to be Religiously Worshipped which was the thing that Lactantius should have confuted But that which we here take notice of is this that Hierocles a grand Persecutor of the Christians and the Author of that bitter Invective against them called Philalethes though he were so strenuous an asserter of Polytheism and Champion for The Gods yet did he nevertheless at the same time clearly acknowledge one Supreme Deity calling him the King that is the Monarch of the Universe the Greatest the Opifex of the World the Fountain of Good the Parent of all things and the Maker and Conserver of all Life But the greatest Opposer of Christianity every way was Julian the Emperour who cannot reasonably be suspected to have disguised or blanched Paganism because he was an Emperour and had so great an Animosity against Christianity and was so superstitiously or bigotically zealous for the Worship of the Gods and yet this very Julian notwithstanding was an unquestionable Assertor of One Supreme Deity In his Book written against the Christians he declares the general sence of the Pagans after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Our Theologers affirm the Maker of all to be a common Father and King but that the Nations as to particular things are distributed by him to other Inferiour Gods that are appointed to be Governours over Countries and Cities every one of which administers in his own Province agreeably to himself For whereas in the Common Father all things are Perfect and One is All in the Particular or Partial Deities one excels in one Power and another in another Afterwards in the same Book he contends that the Pagans did entertain righter Opinions concerning the Supreme God than the Jews themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If that God who is so much spoken of by Moses be the Immediate Opificer of the whole World we Pagans entertain better Opinions of him who suppose him to be the common Lord of all but that there are other Governours of Nations and Countries under him as Prefects or Presidents appointed by a King we not ranking him amongst those Partial Governours of Particular Countries and Cities as the Jews do From both which places it is evident that according to Julian's Theology all those other Gods whose Worship he contended so much for were but the Subordinate Ministers of that One Supreme God the Maker of all The same thing might be further manifested from Julian's Oration made in praise of the Sun as a Great God in this visible World he therein plainly acknowledging another far more Glorious Deity which was the Cause of all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is One God the Maker of all things but besides him there are many other Demiurgical Gods moving round the Heavens in the midst of which is the Sun Where we have a clear acknowledgement of One Supreme God and of Many Inferiour Deities both together Moreover in the same Oration he declareth that the Ancient Poets making the Sun to have been the Off-spring of Hyperion did by this Hyperion understand nothing else but the Supreme Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him who is above all things and about whom and for whose sake are all things Which Supreme Deity is thus more largely described by him in the same Oration where he calls him the King of all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This God whether â—e ought to be called that which is above Mind and Vnderstanding or the Idea of all things or The One since Vnity seems to be the oldâ—st of all things or else as Plato was wont to call him The Good I say this Vniform Cause of all things which is the Original of all Pulchritude and Perfection Vnity and Power produced from himself a certain Intelligible Sun every way like himself of which the Sensible Sun is but an Image For thus Dionysius Petavius rightly declares the sence of Julian in this Oration Vanissimae hujus loquacissimae disputationis mysterium est à Principe ac Primario Deo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quendam archetypum Solem editum fuisse qui eandem prorsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in genere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habeat quam in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille quem videmus Solaris Globus obtinet Tria itaque discernenda sunt Princeps ille Deus qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à Platone dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The mystery of this most vain and loquacious Disputation is this That from the First and Chief Deity was produced a certain Intelligible and Archetypal Sun which hath the same place or order in the rank of Intelligible Things that the Sensible Sun hath in the rank of Sensibles So that here are Three things to be distinguish'd from one another First the Supreme Deity which Plato calls The Good Secondly the Intelligible Sun or Eternal Intellect and Lastly the Corporeal or Sensible Sun Animated Where notwithstanding we may take notice how near this Pagan Philosopher and Emperour Julian approached to Christianity though so much opposed by him in that he also supposed an Eternal Mind or Intellect as the Immediate Off-spring of the First Fountain of all things which seems to differ but a little from the Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 However it is plain that this devout Restorer of Paganism and zealous Contender for the Worship of The Gods asserted no Multiplicity of Independent Self-existent Deities but derived all his Gods from One. As for those other Philosophers and Learned men who in those latter times of the Declining of Paganism after Constantine still stood out in opposition against Christianity such as Jamblichus Syrianus Proclus Simplicius and many others it is unquestionably evident concerning them all that they clearly acknowledged One Supreme Deity as the
smothered and oppressed by these Frauds and Forgeries of its seeming Friends and Defenders The Other Extreme may be in concluding the whole business of the Sibylline Oracles as any ways relating to Christianity to have been a mere Cheat and Figment and that there never was any thing in those Sibylline Books which were under the Custody of the Quindecimviri that did in the least predict our Saviour Christ or the Times of Christianity For notwithstanding all that the Learned Blundel hath written it seems to be undeniably evident from Virgil's Fourth Idyllium that the Cumean Sibyl was then supposed to have predicted a New Flourishing Kingdom or Monarchy together with a Happy State of Justice or Righteousness to succede in the Latter Age of the World Vltima Cumaei venit jam Carminis aetas Magnus ab integro Seclorum nascitur ordo Jam redit Virgo redeunt Saturnia Regna Jam nova progenies Coelo delabitur alto c. Moreover it is certain that in Cicero's time the Sibylline Prophecies were interpreted by some in favour of Caesar as predicting a Monarchy Sibyllae versus observamus quos illa furens fudisse dicitur Quorum Interpres nuper falsa quadam hominum fama dicturus in Senatu putabatur Eum quem reverà Regem habebamus appellandum quoque esse Regem si salvi esse vellemus We take notice of the Verses of the Sibyl which she is said to have powred out in a Fury or Prophetick Frenzy the Interpreter whereof was lately thought to have been about to declare in the Senate-house That if we would be safe we should acknowledge him for a King who really was so Which Interpretation of the Sibylline Oracles after Caesar's Death Cicero was so much offended with he also looking upon a Roman Monarchy as a thing no ness impossible than undesirable that upon this occasion he quarrels with those very Sibylline Oracles themselves as well as the Readers and Expounders of them after this manner Hoc si est in Libris in quem Hominem in quod Tempus est Callidè enim qui illa composuit perfecit ut quodcunque accidisset praedictum videretur Hominum â—emporum definitione sublatâ Adhibuit etiam latebram obscuritatis ut iidem versus alià s in aliam rem posse accommodari viderentur Non esse autem illud Carmen furentis tum ipsum Poema declarat est enim magis Artis Diligentiae quà m Incitationis motus tum verò ea quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur cum deinceps ex primis Versuum literis aliquid connectitur Quamobrem Sibyllam quidem sepositam conditam habeamus ut id quod proditum est à Majoribus injussu Senatûs nè legantur quidem Libri If there be any such thing conteined in the Sibylline Books then we demand concerning what Man is it spoken and of what Time For whoever framed those Sibylline Verses he craftily contrived that whatsoever should come to pass might seem to have been predicted in them by taking away all Distinction of Persons and Times He also purposely affected Obscurity that the same Verses might be accommodated sometime to one thing and sometime to another But that they proceeded not from Fury and Prophetick Rage but rather from Art and Contrivance doth no less appear otherwise than from the Acrostick in them Wherefore let us shut up the Sibyl and keep her close that according to the Decree of our Ancestors her Verses may not be read without the express command of the Senate And lastly he addeth Cum Antistitibus agamus ut quidvis potius ex illis libris quà m Regem proserant quem Romae posthac nec Dii nec Homines esse patientur Let us also deal with the Quindecimviri and Interpreters of these Sibylline Books that they would rather produce any thing out of them than a King whom neither Gods nor Men will hereafter suffer at Rome Where though Cicero were mistaken as to the Event of the Roman Government and there were doubtless some Predictions in these Sibylline Books of a New Kingdom or Monarchy to be set up in the World yet that the Roman Empire was not the thing intended in them doth manifestly appear from that Discription in Virgil's forementioned Eclogue wherein there is accordingly another Completion of them expected though flatteringly applied to Saloninus Wherefore we conclude that the Kingdom and Happy State or Golden Age predicted in the Sibylline Oracles was no other than that of the Messiâ—h or our Saviour Christ and the times of Christianity Lastly in that other Passage of Cicero's concerning the Sibylline Oracles Valeant ad deponendas potiùs quà m ad suscipiendas Religiones Let them be made use of rather for the extinguishing than the begetting of Religions and Superstitions there seems to be an Intimation as if of themselves they rather tended to the Lessening than Encreasing of the Pagan Superstitions and therefore may probably be thought to have predicted a Change of that Pagan Religion by the Worship of one Sole Deity to be introduced Neither ought it to seem a jot more strange that our Saviour Christ should be foretold by the Pagan Sibyl than that he was so clearly predicted by Balaam the Aramitick Sorcerer However those things in the Sibylline Verses might have been derived some way or other from the Scripture-prophecies which there is indeed the more probability of because that Sibylline Prophet made use of those very same Figures and Allegories in describing the Future Happy State that are found in the Scripture as for Example Nec magnos metuent Armenta Leones Occidet Serpens c. Now as Cicero seems to complain that in his time these Sibylline Oracles were too much exposed to view so is it very probable that notwithstanding they were to be kept under the Guard of the Quindecimviri yet many of them might be copied out and get abroad and thereby an occasion be offered to the ignorantly zealous Christians who were for Officious Lyes and Pious Frauds to add a great deal more of their own forging to them Neither indeed is it imaginable how any such Cheat as this should either at first have been attempted or afterwards have proved successful had there not been some Foundation of Truth to support and countenance it Besides which it is observable that Celsus who would have had the Christians rather to have made the Sibyl than our Saviour Christ a God taking notice of their using of those Sibylline Testimonies against the Pagans did not tax them for counterfeiting the whole business of these Sibylline Oracles but only for inserting many things of their own into them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You Christians might much rather have acknowledged even the Sibyl for the Off-spring of God but now you can boldly insert into her Verses Many and those Maledicent things of your own Where Origen that he might vindicate as well as he could the honour of Christians pleads in their
defence that Celsus for all that could not shew what they had foisted into those Sibylline Verses because if he had been able to have produced more ancient and incorrupt Copies in which such things were not found he would certainly have done it Notwithstanding which it is likely that there were other ancient Copies then to be found and that Celsus might have met with them too and that from thence he took occasion to write as he did However this would not justifie the present Sibylline Books in which there are Forgeries plainly discoverable without Copies Nevertheless it seems that all the ancient Christians did not agree in making use of these Sibylline Testimonies thus much being intimated by Celsus himself in the forecited words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some of you make use of as they did not all acknowledge the Sibyl to have been a Prophetess neither since upon Celsus mentioning a Sect of Christians called Sibyllists Origen tells us that these were such as using the Sibylline Testimonies were called so in way of disgrace by other Christians who would not allow the Sibyl to have been a Prophetess they perhaps conceiving it derogatory to the Scriptures But though their may be some of the ancient Sibylline Verses still left in that Farrago which we now have yet it being impossible for us to prove which are such we shall not insist upon any Testimonies at all from thence to evince that the ancient Pagans acknowledged One Supreme Deity Notwithstanding which we shall not omit one Sibylline Passage which we find recorded in Pausanias from whence by the way it appears also that the Sibylline Verses were not kept up so close but that some of them got abroad he telling us that the defeat of the Athenians at Aegos Potamos was predicted by the Sibyl in these Words amongst others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ac tum Cecropidis luctum gemitúsque ciebit Jupiter Altitonans rerum cui Summa Potestas c. Whereto might be added also that of another ancient Peliadean Prophetess in the same Writer wherein the Divine Eternity and Immutability is plainly declared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter Est Fuit atque Erit O bone Jupiter alme Besides these Sibylline Prophecies there are also other Oracles of the Pagan Deities themselves in which there was a clear acknowledgment of One Supreme and Greatest God But as for such of them as are said to have been delivered since the Times of Christianity when the Pagan Oracles began to fail and such as are now extant only in Christian Writings however divers of them are cited out of Porphyrius his Book of Oracles because they may be suspected we shall not here mention any of them Nevertheless we shall take notice of One Oracle of the Clarian Apollo that is recorded by Macrobius in which One Supreme Deity is not only asserted but is also called by that Hebrew Name or Tetragrammaton Jao 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are to call the Highest and Supreme of all the Gods Jao Though it be very true that that Clarian Devil there cunningly endeavoured to divert this to the Sun as if that were the Only Supreme Deity and True Jao To which might be added another ancient Oracle that now occurrs of the Dodonean Jupiter together with the Interpretation of Themistocles to whom it was delivered wherein he was commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repair to him who was called by the same Name with God which Themistocles apprehended to be the King of Persia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because both he and God were alike called though in different respects and degrees the Great King or Monarch But as for those Writings commonly imputed to Hermes Trismegist that have been generally condemned by the Learned of this Latter Age as wholly Counterfeit and Supposititious and yet on the contrary are asserted by Athanasius Kircherus for sincere and Genuine we shall have occasion to declare our sence concerning them more opportunely afterward The most Ancient Theologers and most Eminent Assertors of Polytheism amongst the Pagans were Zoroaster in the Eastern Parts and Orpheus amongst the Greeks The former of which was of so great Antiquity that Writers cannot well agree about his Age. But that he was a Polytheist is acknowledged by all some affirming it to be signified in his very Name as given him after his death it being interpreted by them A Worshipper of the Stars Neither is it to be doubted but that Ster or Ester in the Persian Language did signifie a Star as it hath been observed also by Learned men concerning sundry other Words now familiar in these European Languages that they derived their Original from the Persian Notwithstanding which it may be suspected that this was here but a Greek Termination the Word being not only in the Oriental Languages written Zertoost and Zaradust but also in Agathias Zarades However Zoroaster's Polytheism is intimated by Plato where his Magick is defined to have been nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Worship of the Gods Whence by the way we learn also that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Magick was first taken in a good sence which is confirmed by Porphyrius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amongst the Persians those who were skilful in the knowledge of the Deity and Religious Worshippers of the same were called Magi. And as Magick is commonly conceived to be founded in a certain Vital Sympathy that is in the Universe so did these ancient Persian Magi and Chaldeans as Psellus tells us suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there was a Sympathy betwixt the Superiour and Inferiour Beings but it seems the only way at first by them approved of attracting the Influence and Assistance of those Superior Invisible Powers was by Piety Devotion and Religious Rites Nevertheless their Devotion was not carried out only to One Omnipotent God but also to Many Gods neither is it to be questioned but that this Divine Magick of Zoroaster shortly after degenerated in many of his Followers into the Theurgical Magick and at length into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 downright Sorcery and Witchcraft the only thing which is now vulgarly called Magick But how many Gods soever this Zoroaster worshipped that he acknowledged notwithstanding One Supreme Deity appeareth from the Testimony of Eubulus cited by Porphyrius in his De Antro Nympharum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zoroaster first of all as Eubulus testifieth in the Mountains adjoyning to Persis consecrated a Native Orbicular Cave adorned with flowers and watered with fountains to the honour of Mithras the Maker and Father of all things this Cave being an Image or Symbol to him of the whole World which was made by Mithras Which Testimony of Eubulus is the more to be valued because as Porphyrius elsewhere informeth us he wrote the History of Mithras at large in many Books from whence it may be presumed that he had thoroughly furnished himself with the
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
things and Many Generated Gods and Goddesses that were all conteined in it Having now made it sufficiently evident from such Orphick Fragments as have been acknowledged by Pagan Writers and by them cited out of Orpheus his Hymns and Rapsodies that the Opinion of Monarchy or One Self-existent Deity the Original of all things was an Essential Part of the Orphick Theology or Cabala we shall here further observe that besides this Opinion of Monarchy but consistently with the same a Trinity also of Divine Hypostases Subordinate was another part of this Orphick Cabala Proclus upon Plato's Timaeus making an Enquiry into Plato's Demiurgus or Opifex of the World gives us an accompt amongst other Platonists of the Doctrine of Amelius who was contemporary with Plotinus and who is said to have taken notice of what St. John the Evangelist had written concerning the Logos as agreeing with the Platonick and Pythagorick Hypothesis after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Passage being very remarkable we thought fit to set it down at large and shall here translate it Amelius makes a Threefold Demiurgus or Opifex of the World Three Minds and Three Kings Him that Is Him that Hath and Him that Beholds Which Three Minds differ thus in that the First is Essentially that which he is or all Perfection The Second Is its own Intelligible but Hath the First as something distinct from it and indeed partakes thereof and therefore is Second The Third Is also that Intelligible of its own for every Mind is the same thing with its correspondent Intelligible but Hath that which is in the Second and Beholds the First For how much soever every Being departs from the First so much the Obscurer is it After which Proclus immediately subjoyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amelius therefore supposeth These three Minds and Demiurgick Principles of his to be both the same with Plato 's Three Kings and with Orpheus his Trinity of Phanes Uranus and Chronus but Phanes is supposed by him to be principally the Demiurgus Where though Proclus who had some Peculiar Phansies and Whimseys of his own and was indeed a Confounder of the Platonick Theology and a Mingler of much Unintelligible Stuff with it does himself assert a Monad or Vnity Superior to this Whole Trinity yet does he seem nevertheless rightly to contend against Amelius that it was not the First Hypostasis neither in the Platonick nor Orphick Trinity that was chiefly and properly the Demiurgus or Opifex of the World but the Secâ—nd And thus Proclus his Master Syrianus had before determined that in the Orphick Theology the Title of Opifex did properly belong to Orpheus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or First-begotten God which was the same with Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Intellect Agreeably whereunto Proclus his Conclusion is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus much may suffice to have declared who is the Demiurgus of the World namely that it is the Divine Intellect which is the proper and immediate Cause of the whole Creation and that it is one and the same Demiurgical Jupiter that is praised both by Orpheus and Plato Now besides this it is observable that Damascius in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Concerning the Principles not yet published giving an account of the Orphick Theology tells us amongst other things that Orpheus introduced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Triform Deity To all which may be added what was before cited out of Timotheus the Chronographer That God had Three Names Light Counsel and Life and that all things were made by one Deity under these Three several Names Where Cedrenus the Preserver of that excellent Fragment of Antiquity concludes in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things Timotheus the Chronographer wrote affirming Orpheus so long ago to have declared That All things were made by a Coessential or Consubstantial Trinity Which though otherwise it might be looked upon suspiciously because that Timotheus was a Christian especially in regard of that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet by comparing it with what we have before alledged out of Pagan Writers it appears that so far as concerns an Orphick Trinity it was not altogether vainly Written or without Ground by him But we have not yet done with Orpheus and the Orphick Theology before we have made one further Reflection upon it so as to take notice of that strong and rank Haut-goust which was in it of making God to be All. As for example if we may repeat the forecited Passages and put in the Name of God instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jupiter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Vniverse and all things belonging to it were made within God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things were contained together in the Womb of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is the Head and Middle of all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. God is the Basis of the Earth and Heaven God is the Depth of the Sea God is the Breath of all or the Air that we breath God is the Force of the Vntameable Fire God is Sun Moon and Stars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is One Kingly or Divine Body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For All these things lie in the Great Body of God And thus was the Orphick Theology before represented also by Timotheus the Chronographer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things were made by God and Himself is All Things But further to prove that the ancient Greekish Pagans were indeed of such a Religious Humour as this to resolve All Things into God and to make God All we shall here cite a Remarkable Testimony of Plutarch's out of his Defect of Oracles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereas there are Two Causes of all Generation the Divine and the Natural the most ancient Theologers and Poets attended only to the more excellent of these Two the Divine Cause resolving all things into God and pronouncing this of them universally That God was both the Beginning and Middle and that all things were out of God Insomuch that these had no regard at all to the other Natural and Necessary Causes of things But on the contrary their Juniours who were called Physici or Naturalists straying from this most excellent and Divine Principle placed all in Bodies their Passions Collisions Mutations and Commixtures together Where by the most ancient Theologers and Poets Plutarch plainly meant Orpheus and his Followers it being an Orphick Verse that is here cited by him whereby he gives also an acknowledgment of their Antiquity But by their Juniors who are called Physici he could understand no other than those First Ionick Philosophers Anaximander Anaximenes Hippo and the rest whom those Degenerate Italicks afterward followed Atomizing Atheistically Leucippus Democritus and Epicurus So that here we have another Confirmation also of what was before asserted by us that the Ionick
the First and Last of them to be suspected We shall here repeat none of Casaubon's condemned Passages but add one more to them out of the Thirteenth Book or Sermon in the Mount which however omitted by him seems to be more rankly Christian than any other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tell me this also Who is the Cause or Worker of Regeneration The Son of God One Man by the will of God Wherefore though Ath. Kircherus contend with much zeal for the sincerity of all these Trismegistick Books yet we must needs pronounce of the Three forementioned at least the Paemander properly so called and the Sermon in the Mount that they were either wholly forged and counterfeited by some pretended Christians or else had many spurious Passages inferted into them Wherefore it cannot be solidly proved from the Trismegistick Books after this manner as supposed to be all alike Genuine and sincere that the Egyptian Pagans acknowledged One Supreme and Vniversal Numen Much less can the same be evinced from that pretended Aristotelick Book De secretiore parte Divinae Sapientiae secundùm Aegyptios greedily swallowed down also by Kircherus but unquestionably pseudepigraphous Notwithstanding which we conceive that though all the Trismegistick Books that now are or have been formerly extant had been forged by some pretended Christians as that Book of the Arcane Egyptian Wisdom was by some Philosopher and imputed to Aristotle yet would they for all that upon another accompt afford no inconsiderable Argument to prove that the Egyptian Pagans asserted One Supreme Deity viz. Because every Cheat and Imposture must needs have some Basis or Foundation of Truth to stand upon there must have been something truly Egyptian in such counterfeit Egyptian Writings and therefore this at least of One Supreme Deity or else they could never have obtained credit at first or afterwards have maintain'd the same The rather because these Trismegistick Books were dispersed in those ancient times before the Egyptian Paganism and their Succession of Priests were yet extinct and therefore had that which is so much insisted upon in them been dissonant from the Egyptian Theology they must needs have been presently exploded as meer Lyes and Forgeries Wherefore we say again that if all the Hermaick or Trismegistick Books that are now extant and those to boot which being mentioned in ancient Fathers have been lost as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like had been nothing but the Pious Frauds and Cheats of Christians yet must there needs have been some Truth at the bottom to give subsistence to them This at least that Hermes Trismegist or the Egyptian Priests in their Arcane and True Theology really acknowledged One Supreme and Vniversal Numen But it does not all follow that because some of these Hermaick or Trismegistick Books now extant were counterfeit or supposititious that therefore all of them must needs be such and not only so but those also that are mentioned in the Writings of ancient Fathers which are now lost Wherefore the Learned Casaubon seems not to have reckoned or concluded well when from the detection of Forgery in Two or Three of those Trismegistick Books at most he pronounces of them all universally that they were nothing but Christian Cheats and Impostures And probably he was lead into this mistake by reason of his too securely following that vulgar Errour which yet had been confuted by Patricius that all that was published by Ficinus under the name of Hermes Trismegist was but one and the same Book Poemander consisting of several Chapters whereas they are all indeed so many Distinct and Independent Books whereof Poemander is only placed First However there was no shadow of reason why the Asclepius should have fallen under the same condemnation nor several other Books superadded by Patricius they being unquestionably distinct from the Poemander and no signs of Spuriousness or Bastardy discovered in them Much less ought those Trismegistick Books cited by the Fathers and now lost have been condemned also Unseen Wherefore notwithstanding all that Casaubon has written there may very well be some Hermetick or Trismegistick Books Genuine though all of them be not such that is according to our after-declaration there may be such Books as were really Egyptian and not counterfeited by any Christian though perhaps not written by Hermes Trismegist himself nor in the Egyptian Language And as it cannot well be conceived how there should have beeen any counterfeit Egyptian Books had there been none at all Real so that there were some Real and Genuine will perhaps be rendered probable by these following Considerations That there was anciently amongst the Egyptians such a man as Thoth Theuth or Taut who together with Letters was the First Inventor of Arts and Sciences as Arithmetick Geometry Astronomy and of the Hieroglyphick Learning therefore called by the Greeks Hermes and by the Latins Mercurius cannot reasonably be denied it being a thing confirmed by general Fame in all Ages and by the Testimonies not only of Sanchuniathon a Phenician Historiographer who lived about the times of the Trojan War and wrote a Book concerning the Theology of the Egyptians and Manethos Sebennyta an Egyptian Priest contemporary with Ptol. Philadelphus but also of that grave Philosopher Plato who is said to have sojourned Thirteen years in Egypt that in his Philebus speaks of him as the First Inventor of Letters who distinguished betwixt Vowels and Consonants determining their several Numbers there calling him either a God or Divine Man but in his Phaedrus attributeth to him also the Invention of Arithmetick Geometry and Astronomy together with some ludicrous Recreations making him either a God or Demon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have heard saith he that about Naucratis in Egypt there was one of the ancient Egyptian Gods to whom the Bird Ibis was sacred as his Symbol or Hieroglyphick the name of which Demon was Theuth In which place the Philosopher subjoyns also an Ingenious Dispute betwixt this Theuth and Thamus then King of Egypt concerning the Convenience and Inconvenience of Letters the Former boasting of that Invention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Remedy for Memory and great Help to Wisdom but the Latter contending that it would rather beget Oblivion by the neglect of Memory and therefore was not so properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Remedy for Memory as Reminiscence or the Recovery of things forgotten adding that it would also weaken and enervate Mens Natural Faculties by slugging them and rather beget 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Puffy Conceit and Opinion of Knowledge by a Multifarious Rabble of Indigested Notions than the Truth thereof Moreover since it is certain that the Egyptians were famous for Literature before the Greeks they must of necessity have some One or More Founders of Learning amongst them as the Greeks had and Thoth is the Only or First Person celebrated amongst them
upon this accompt in remembrance of whom the First Moneth of the Year was called by that Name Which Thoth is generally supposed to have lived in the times of the Patriarchs or considerably before Moses Moses himself being said to have been instructed in that Learning which owed its Original to him Again besides this Thoth or Theuth who was called the First Hermes the Egyptians had also afterwards another eminent Advancer or Restorer of Learning who was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second Hermes They perhaps supposing the Soul of Thoth or the First Hermes to have come into him by Transmigration but his proper Egyptian Name was Siphoas as Syncellus out of Manetho informs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Siphoas who is also Hermes the Son of Vulcan This is he who is said to have been the Father of Tat and to have been Surnamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ter Maximus he being so styled by Manetho Jamblichus and others And he is placed by Eusebius in the Fiftieth year after the Israelitish Exitus though probably somewhat too Early The Former of these Two Hermes was the Inventor of Arts and Sciences the Latter the Restorer and Advancer of them the First wrote in Hieroglyphicks upon Pillars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the learned Valesius conjectures it should be read instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Syringes what they were Am. Marcellinus will instruct us The Second Interpreted and Translated those Hieroglyphicks composing many Books in several Arts and Sciences the Number whereof set down by Jamblichus must needs be Fabulous unless it be understood of Paragraphs or Verses Which Trismegistick or Hermetick Books were said to be carefully preserved by the Priests in the Interiour Recesses of their Temples But besides the Hieroglyphicks written by the First Hermes and the Books composed by the Second who was called also Trismegist it cannot be doubted but that there were Many other Books written by the Egyptian Priests successively in several Ages And Jamblichus informs us in the beginning of his Mysteries That Hermes the God of Eloquence and President or Patron of all true Knowledge concerning the Gods was formerly accounted Common to all the Priests insomuch that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they dedicated the Inventions of their Wisdom to him entitling their own Books to Hermes Trismegist Now though One Reason hereof might probably have been thought to have been this because those Books were supposed to have been written according to the Tenour of the Old Hermetick or Trismegistick Doctrine yet Jamblichus here acquaints us with the chief Ground of it namely this that though Hermes was once a Mortal Man yet he was afterward Deified by the Egygtians which is testified also by Plato and made to be the Tutelar God and Fautor of all Arts and Sciences but especially Theology by whose Inspiration therefore all such Books were conceived to have been written Nay further we may observe that in some of the Hermaick or Trismegistick Books now extant Hermes is sometimes put for the Divine Wisdom or Vndâ—rstanding it self And now we see the true Reason Why there have been many Books called Hermetical and Trismegistical Some of which notwithstanding cannot possibly be conceived to have been of such great Antiquity nor written by Hermes Trismegist himself viz. because it was customary with the Egyptian Priests to entitle their own Philosophick and Theologick Books to Hermes Moreover it is very probable that several of the Books of the Egyptian Priests of Latter times were not Originally written in the Egyptian Language but the Greek because at least from the Ptolemaick Kings downward Greek was become very familiar to all the learned Egyptians and in a manner vulgarly spoken as may appear from those very Words Hermes Trismegist and the like so commonly used by them together with the Proper Names of Places and because the Coptick Language to this very day hath more of Greek than Egyptian Words in it nay Plutarch ventures to etymologize those Old Egyptian Names Isis Osiris Horus and Typhon from the Greek as if the Egyptians had been anciently well acquainted with that Language Now that some of those ancient Hermaick Books written by Hermes Trismegist himself or believed to be such by the Egyptians and kept in the custody of their Priests were still in being and extant amongst them after the times of Christianity seems to be unquestionable from the testimony of that Pious and Learned Father Clemens Alexandrinus he giving this particular Accompt of them after the mentioning of their Opinion concerning the Transmigration of Souls The Egyptians follow a certain peculiar Philosophy of their own which may be best declared by setting down the Order of their Religious Procession First therefore goes the Precentor carrying Two of Hermes his Books along with him the One of which conteins the Hymns of the Gods the Other Directions for the Kingly Office After him follows the Horoscopus who is particularly instructed in Hermes his Astrological Books which are Four Then succeeds the Hierogrammateus or Sacred Scribe with Feathers upon his head and a Book and Rule in his hands to whom it belongeth to be thoroughly acquainted with the Hieroglyphicks as also with Cosmography Geography the Order of the Sun and Moon and Five Planets the Chorography of Egypt and Description of Nile In the next place cometh the Stolistes who is to be thoroughly instructed in those Ten Books which treat concerning the honour of the Gods the Egyptian Worship Sacrifices First-fruits Prayers Pomps and Festivals And last of all marcheth the Prophet who is President of the Temple and Sacred things and ought to be thoroughly versed in those other Ten Books called Sacerdotal concerning Laws the Gods and the whole Discipline of the Priests Wherefore amongst the Books of Hermes there are Forty Two accounted most necessary of which Thirty Six conteining all the Egyptian Philosophy were to be learned by those Particular Orders before-mentioned but the other Six treating of Medicinal things by the Pastophori From which place we understand that at least Forty Two Books of the ancient Hermes Trismegist or such reputed by the Egyptians were still extant in the time of Clemens Alexandrinus about Two Hundred years after the Christian Epocha Furthermore that there were certain Books really Egyptian and called Hermaical or Trismegistical whether written by the ancient Hermes Trismegist himself or by other Egyptian Priests of latter times according to the Tenour of his Doctrine and only entitled to him which after the times of Christianity began to be taken notice of by other Nations the Greeks and Latins seems probable from hence because such Books are not only mentioned and acknowledged by Christian Writers and Fathers but also by Pagans and Philosophers In Plutarch's Discourse de Iside Osiride we read thus of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Books called Hermes 's or Hermaical it is reported to have been written concerning Sacred Names that the Power appointed to preside
over the Motion of the Sun is called by the Egyptians Horus as by the Greeks Apollo and that which presides over the Air and Wind is called by some Osiris by others Sarapis and by others Sothi in the Egyptian Language Now these Sacred Names in Plutarch seem to be Several Names of God and therefore whether these Hermaick Books of his were the same with those in Clemens Alexandrinus such as were supposed by the Egyptians to have been written by Hermes Trismegist himself or other Books written by Egyptian Priests according to the Tenour of this Doctrine We may by the way observe that according to the Hermaical or Trismegistick Doctrine One and the same Deity was worshipped under Several Names and Notions according to its Several Powers and Vertues manifested in the World which is a thing afterwards more to be insisted on Moreover it hath been generally believed that L. Apuleius Madaurensis an eminent Platonick Philosopher and zealous Asserter of Paganism was the Translator of the Asclepian Dialogue of Hermes Trismegist out of Greek into Latin which therefore hath been accordingly published with Apuleius his Works And Barthius affirms that St. Austin does somewhere expresly impute this Version to Apuleius but we confess we have not yet met with the place However there seems to be no sufficient reason why Colvius should call this into Question from the Stile and Latin Again it is certain that Jamblichus doth not only mention these Hermaick Books under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Books that are carried up and down as Hermes 's or vulgarly imputed to him but also vindicate them from the imputation of Imposture Not as if there were any suspicion at all of that which Casaubon is so confident of that these Hermaick Books were all forged by Christians but because some might then possibly imagine them to have been counterfeited by Philosophers Wherefore it will be convenient here to set down the whole Passage of Jamblichus concerning it as it is in the Greek MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These things being thus discussed and determined the Solution of that difficulty from those Books which Porphyrius saith he met withal namely the Hermaicks and those Writings of Chaeremon will be clear and easie For the Books vulgarly imputed to Hermes do really contain the Hermaick Opinions and Doctrines in them although they often speak the language of Philosophers the reason whereof is because they were translatâ—d out of the Egyptian tongue by men not unacquainted with Philosophy But Chaeremon and those others c. Where it is First observable that Jamblichus doth not affirm these Hermaick Books to have been written by Hermes Trismegist himself he calling them only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Books that were carried about as Hermes ' s. But that which he affirmeth of them is this That they did really contain the Hermaical Opinions and derive their Original from Egypt Again whereas some might then possibly suspect that these Hermaick Books had been counterfeited by Greek Philosophers and contained nothing but the Greek Learning in them because they speak so much the Philosophick Language Jamblichus gives an accompt of this also that the reason hereof was because they were translated out of the Egyptian Language by men skilled in the Greek Philosophy who therefore added something of their own Phrase and Notion to them It is true indeed that most of these Hermaick Books which now we have seem to have been written originally in Greek notwithstanding which others of them and particularly those that are now lost as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like might as Jamblichus here affirmeth have been translated out of the Egyptian Tongue but by their Translators disguised with Philosophick Language and other Grecanick things intermixed with them Moreover from the forecited Passage of Jamblichus we may clearly collect that Porphyrius in his Epistle to Anebo the Egyptian Priest of which Epistle there are only some small fragments left did also make mention of these Hermaick Writings and whereas he found the Writings of Chaeremon to be contradictious to them therefore desired to be resolved by that Egyptian Priest whether the Doctrine of those Hermaick Books were genuine and truly Egyptian or no. Now Jamblichus in his answer here affirmeth that the Doctrine of the ancient Hermes or the Egyptian Theology was as to the Substance truly represented in those Books vulgarly imputed to Hermes but not so by Chaeremon Lastly St. Cyril of Alexandria informs us that there was an Edition of these Hermaick or Trismegistick Books compiled together formerly made at Athens under this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fifteen Hermaick Books Which Hermaicks Casaubon conceiving them to have been published before Jamblichus his time took them for those Salaminiaca which he found in the Latin Translations of Jamblichus made by Ficinus and Scutellius Whereas indeed he was here abused by those Translators there being no such thing to be found in the Greek Copy But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not understood by them being turned into Salaminiaca Casaubon therefore conjectur'd them to have been those Hermaick Books published at Athens because Salamin was not far distant from thence Now it cannot be doubted but that this Edition of Hermaick Books at Athens was made by some Philosopher or Pagans and not by Christians this appearing also from the words of St. Cyril himself where having spoken of Moses and the agreement of Hermes with him he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of which Moses he also who compiled and published the Fifteen Hermaick Books at Athens makes mention in his own discourse annexed thereunto For thus we conceive that place is to be understood that the Pagan Publisher of the Hermaick Books himself took notice of some agreement that was betwixt Moses and Hermes But here it is to be noted that because Hermes and the Hermaick Books were in such great credit not only amongst the Christians but also the Greek and Latin Pagans therefore were there some counterfeit Writings obtruded also under that specious Title such as that Ancient Botanick Book mentioned by Galen and those Christian Forgeries of later times the Paemander and Sermon on the Mount Which being not cited by any ancient Father or Writer were both of them doubtless Later than Jamblichus who discovers no suspicion of any Christian Forgeries in this kind But Casaubon who contends that all the Theologick Books imputed to Hermes Trismegist were counterfeited by Christians affirms all the Philosophy Doctrine and Learning of them excepting what only is Christian in them to be merely Platonical and Grecanical but not at all Egyptian thence concluding that these Books were forged by such Christians as were skilled in the Platonick or Grecanick Learning But First it is here considerable that since Pythagorism Platonism and the Greek Learning in general was in great part derived from the Egyptians it cannot be concluded that whatsoever is
Platonical or Grecanical therefore was not Egyptian The only Instance that Casaubon insists upon is this Dogma in the Trismegistick Books That Nothing in the World perisheth and that Death is not the Destruction but Change and Translation of Things only Which because he finds amongst some of the Greek Philosophers he resolves to be peculiar to them only and not common with the Egyptians But since the chief design and tendency of that Dogma was plainly to maintain the Immortality preexistence and Transmigration of Souls which Doctrine was unquestionably derived from the Egyptians there is little reason to doubt but that this Dogma was it self Egyptian also And Phythagoras who was the chief Propagator of this Doctrine amongst the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That no real Entity in Generations and Corruptions was Made or destroyed according to those Ovidian Verses before cited Nec perit in toto quicquam mihi credite mundo Sed variat faciemque novat Nascique vocatur Incipere esse Aliud c. did in all probability derive it together with its superstructure the Preexistence and Transmigration of Souls at once from the Egyptians But it is observable that the Egyptians had also a peculiar ground of their own for this Dogma which we do not find insisted upon by the Greek Philosophers and it is thus expressed in the Eighth of Ficinus his Hermetick Books or Chapters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the World be a Second God and an Immortal Animal then is it impossible that any part of this Immortal Animal should perish or come to nothing but all things in the World are Parts of this great Mundane Animal and chiefly Man who is a Rational Animal Which same Notion we find also insisted on in the Asclepian Dialogue Secundum Deum hunc crede ô Asclepi omnia gubernantem omniaque mundana illustrantem animalia Si enim Animal Mundus vivens semper fuit est erit nihil in mundo mortale est viventis enim uniuscujusque Partis quae in ipso mundo sicut in uno eodemque Animale semper vivente nullus est mortalitatis locus Where though the Latin be a little imperfect yet the sence is this You are to believe the World ô Asclepius to be a Second God governing all things and illustrating all Mundane Animals Now if the World be a Living Animal and Immortal then there is nothing Mortal in it there being no place for mortality as to any Living Part or Member of that Mundane Animal that always Liveth Notwithstanding which we deny not but that though Pythagoras First derived this Notion from the Egyptians yet he and his Followers might probably improve the same farther as Plato tells us that the Greeks generally did what they received from the Barbarians namely to the taking away the Qualities and Forms of Bodies and resolving all Corporeal Things into Magnitude Figure and Motion But that there is indeed some of the old Egyptian Learning contained in these Trismegistick Books now extant shall be clearly proved afterwards when we come to speak of that Grand Mystery of the Egyptian Theology derived by Orpheus from them That God is All. To conclude Jamblichus his judgment in this case ought without controversie to be far preferred before Casaubon's both by reason of his great Antiquity and his being much better skilled not only in the Greek but also the Egyptian Learning That the Books imputed to Hermes Trismegist did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really contain the Hermaick Opinions though they spake sometimes the Language of the Greek Philosophers Wherefore upon all these Considerations we conceive it reasonable to conclude that though there have been some Hermaick Books counterfeited by Christians since Jamblichus his time as namely the Paemander and The Sermon in the Mount concerning Regeneration neither of which are found cited by any ancient Father yet there were other Hermaick Books which though not written by Hermes Trismegist himself nor all of them in the Egyptian Language but some of them in Greek were truly Egyptian and did for the substance of them contain the Hermaick Doctrine Such probably were those mentioned by the Ancient Fathers but since lost as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seems to have been a discourse concerning the Cosmogonia and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like And such also may some of these Hermaick Books be that are still extant as to instance particularly the Asclepian Dialogue entituled in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Perfect Oration and in all probability translated into Latin by Apuleius For it can hardly be imagined that he who was so devout a Pagan so learned a Philosopher and so Witty a man should be so far imposed upon by a counterfeit Trismegistick Book and mere Christian Cheat as to bestow Translating upon it and recommend it to the World as that which was genuinely Pagan But however whether Apuleius were the Translator of this Asclepian Dialogue or no it is evident that the Spirit of it is not at all Christian but rankly Pagan one Instance whereof we have in its glorying of a power that men have of Making Gods upon which accompt St. Austin thought fit to concern himself in the confutation of it Moreover it being extant and vulgarly known before Jamblichus his time it must needs be included in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently receive this attestation from him that it did contain not merely the Greekish but the Hermaical and Egyptian Doctrine There are indeed some Objections made against this as first from what we read in this Dialogue concerning the Purgation of the World partly by Water and partly by Fire Tunc ille Dominus Pater Deus Primipotens Vnus Gubernator mundi intuens in mores factaque hominum voluntate sua quae est Dei Benignitas vitiis resistens corruptelae errorem revocans malignitatem omnem vel Alluvione diluens vel igne consumens ad antiquam faciem mundum revocabit When the World becomes thus Degenerate then that Lord and Father the Supreme God and the only Governour of the World beholding the manners and deeds of men by his Will which is his Benignity always resisting vice and restoring things from their Degeneracy will either wash away the Malignity of the World by Water or else consume it by Fire and restore it to its ancient form again But since we find in Julius Firmicus that there was a Tradition amongst the Egyptians concerning the Apocatastasis of the World partim per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partim per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partly by Inundation and partly by Conflagration this Objection can signifie nothing Wherefore there is another Objection that hath some more plausibility from that Prophecy which we find in this Asclepius concerning the overthrow of the Egyptian Paganism ushered in with much Lamentation in these words Tunc Terra ista sanctissima sedes Delubrorum Sepulchrorum erit mortuorumque plenissima Then
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
into Hades that is does not utterly perish but only disappears to our sight it being either translated into some other Place or changed into another Form And accordingly it is said of Animals in the Twelfth Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they are dissolved by Death not that they might be destroyed but made again anew As it is also there affirmed of the World that it doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make all things out of it self and again unmake them into it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that dissolving all things it doth perpetually renew them For that nothing in the whole World utterly perisheth as it is often declared elsewhere in these Trismegistick Writings so particularly in this Twelfth Book of Ficinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The whole World is unchangeable only the parts of it being alterable and this so as that none of these neither utterly perisheth or is absolutely destroyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For how can any part of that be Corrupted which is Incorruptible or any thing of God perish or go to nothing All which by Casaubon's lieve we take to have been originally Egyptian Doctrine and thence in part afterwards transplanted into Greece Moreover when in the Poemander God is styled more than once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Light and Life this seems to have been Egyptian also because it was Orphical In like manner the Appendix to the Sermon in the Mount called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Occult Cantion hath some strains of the Egyptian Theology in it which will be afterwards mentioned The result of our present Discourse is this that though some of the Trismegistick Books were either wholly counterfeited or else had certain supposititious Passages inserted into them by some Christian hand yet there being others of them originally Egyptian or which as to the substance of them do contain Hermaical or Egyptian Doctrines in all which One Supreme Deity is every where asserted we may well conclude from hence that the Egyptians had an acknowledgment amongst them of One Supreme Deity And herein several of the Ancient Fathers have gone before us as first of all Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ammon in his Books calleth God Most Hidden and Hermes plainly declareth That it is hard to conceive God but impossible to express him Neither doth it follow that this latter Passage is counterfeit as Casaubon concludes because there is something like it in Plato's Timaeus there being doubtless a very great agreement betwixt Platonism and the Ancient Egyptian Doctrine Thus again St. Cyprian Hermes quoque Trismegistus Vnum Deum loquitur eumque ineffabilem inaestimabilem confitetur Hermes Trismegist also acknowledgeth One God confessing him to be ineffable and inestimable which Passage is also cited by St. Austin Lactantius likewise Thoth antiquissimus instructissimus omni genere Doctrinae adeò ut ei multarum rerum artium scientia Trismegisti cognomen imponeret Hic scripsit Libros quidem multos ad cognitionem Divinarum rerum pertinentes in quibus Majestatem Summi Singularis Dei asserit iisdemque nominibus appellat quibus nos Deum Patrem Ac nè quis nomen ejus requireret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse dixit Thoth that is Hermes the most ancient and most instructed in all kind of Learning for which he was called Trismegist wrote Books and those many belonging to the Knowledge of Divine things wherein he asserts the Majesty of One Supreme Deity calling him by the same names that we do God and Father but lest any one should require a Proper name of him affirming him to be Anonymous Lastly St. Cyril hath much more to the same purpose also And we must confess that we have the rather here insisted so much upon these Hermaick or Trismegistick Writings that in this particular we might vindicate these Ancient Fathers from the Imputation either of Fraud and Imposture or of Simplicity and Folly But that the Egyptians acknowledged besides their Many Gods One Supreme and All-comprehending Deity needs not be proved from these Trismegistick Writings concerning which we leave others to judge as they find Cause it otherwise appearing not only because Orpheus who was an undoubted Asserter of Monarchy or One First Principle of All things is generally affirmed to have derived his Doctrine from the Egyptians but also from plain and express Testimonies For besides Apollonius Tyanaeus his Affirmation concerning both Indians and Egyptians before cited Plutarch throughout his whole Book De Iside Osiride supposes the Egyptians thus to have asserted One Supreme Deity they commonly calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First God Thus in the beginning of that Book he tells us that the End of all the Religious Rites and Mysteries of that Egyptian Goddess Isis was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Knowledge of that First God who is the Lord of all things and only intelligible by the Mind whom this Goddess exhorteth men to seek in her Communion After which he declareth that this First God of the Egyptians was accounted by them an Obscure and Hidden Deity and accordingly he gives the reason why they made the Crocodile to be a Symbol of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because they say the Crocodile is the only Animal which living in the water hath his Eyes covered by a thin transparent membrane falling down over them by reason whereof it sees and is not seen which is a thing that belongs to the First God To see all things himself being not seen Though Plutarch in that place gives also another reason why the Egyptians made the Crocodile a Symbol of the Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither were the Egyptians without a plausible reason for worshipping God Symbolically in the Crocodile that being said to be an Imitation of God in that it is the only Animal without a Tongue For the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Reason standing not in need of Speech and going on through a silent path of Justice in the World does without noise righteously govern and dispense all humane affairs In like manner Horus-Apollo in his Hieroglyphicks tells us that the Egyptians acknowledging a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Omnipotent Being that was the Governour of the whole World did Symbolically represent him by a Serpent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they picturing also a great House or Palace within its circumference because the World is the Royal palace of the Deity Which Writer also gives us another reason why the Serpent was made to be the Hieroglyphick of the Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because the Serpent feeding as it were upon its own Body doth aptly signifie that all things generated in the World by Divine Providence are again resolved into him And Philo Byblius from Sanchuniathon gives the same reason why the Serpent was Deified by Tant or the Egyptian Hermes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is immortal and resolved into it self
to Sanchuniathon the Globe being said to signifie the First Incomprehensible Deity without Beginning or End Self-existent the Serpent the Divine Wisdom and Creative Vertue and lastly the Wings that Active Spirit that cherisheth quickneth and enliveneth all things How far credit is to be given to this we leave others to judge but the clearest footsteps that we can find any where of an Egyptian Trinity is in Jamblichus his Book written concerning their Mysteries which whole place therefore is worth the setting down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to another order or method Hermes places the God Emeph as the Prince and Ruler over all the Celestial Gods whom he affirmeth to be a Mind understanding himself and converting his Cogitations or Intellections into himself Before which Emeph he placeth One Indivisible whom he calleth Eicton in which is the first Intelligible and which is worshipped only by silence After which Two Eicton and Emeph the Demiurgick Mind and President of truth as with wisdom it proceedeth to Generations and bringeth forth the hidden Powers of the occult Reasons into light is called in the Egyptian Language Ammon as it Artificially effects all things with truth Phtha which Phtha the Greeks attending only to the Artificialness thereof call Hephestus or Vulcan as it is productive of Good Osiris besides other names that it hath according to its other Powers and Energies In which Passage of Jamblichus we have plainly Three Divine Hypostases or universal Principles Subordinate according to the Hermaick Theology First an Indivisible Vnity called Eicton Secondly a Perfect Mind converting its Intellections into it self called Emeph or Hemphta and Thirdly theimmediate Principle of Generation called by several names according to its several Powers as Phtha Ammon Osiris and the like So that these Three Names with others according to Jamblichus did in the Egyptian Theology signifie one and the same Third Divine Hypostasis How well these Three Divine Hypostases of the Egyptians agree with the Pythagorick or Platonick Trinity of First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnity and Goodness it self Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind and Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soul I need not here declare Only we shall call to mind what hath been already intimated that that Reason or Wisdom which was the Demiurgus of the World and is properly the Second of the forementioned Hypostases was called also amongst the Egyptians by another name Cneph from whom was said to have been produced or begotten the God Phtha the Third Hypostasis of the Egyptian Trinity so that Cneph and Emeph are all one Wherefore we have here plainly an Egyptian Trinity of Divine Hypostases Subordinate Eicton Emeph or Cneph and Phtha VVe know not what to add more to this of Jamblichus concerning an Egyptian Trinity unless we should insist upon those Passages which have been cited by some of the Fathers to this purpose out of Hermaick or Trismegistick Books whereof there was one before set down out of St. Cyril or unless we should again call to mind that Citation out of Damascius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that according to the Egyptians there is One Principle of all things praised under the name of the Vnknown Darkness and this Thrice repeated Agreeably to which Augustinus Steuchus produces another Passage out of the same Philosophick VVriter that the Egyptians made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First Principle of all to be Darkness above all Knowledge and Vnderstanding or Vnknown Darkness they Thrice repeating the same VVhich the forementioned Steuchus takes to be a clear acknowledgement of a Trinity of Divine Hypostases in the Egyptian Theology Our Second Observation is this That the Egyptian Theology as well as the Orphick which was derived from it asserting One Incorporeal Deity that is All Things as it is evident that it could not admit a Multitude of Self-existent and Independent Deities so did the seeming Polytheism of these Egyptians proceed also in great measure from this Principle of theirs not rightly understood they being led thereby in a certain sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Personate and Deifie the Several Parts of the World and Things of Nature bestowing the Names of Gods and Goddesses upon them Not that they therefore worshipped the Inanimate Parts of the VVorld as such Much less Things not Substantial but meer Accidents for so many Real Distinct Personal Deities but because conceiving that God who was All things ought to be Worshipped in All things such especially as were most Beneficial to Mankind they did according to that Asclepian and Trismegistick Doctrine before-mentioned Call God by the Name of every â—hing or Every thing by the Name of God And that the wiser of them very well understood that it was really One and the same Simple Deity that was thus worshipped amongst them by piece-meal in the several Parts of the World and Things of Nature and under different Names and Notions with different Ceremonies is thus declared by Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isis is a Greek Word which signifies Knowledge and Typhon is the Enemy to this Goddess who being puffed up by Ignorance and Error doth Distract and Discerp the Holy Doctrine of the Simple Deity which Isis collects together again and makes up into One and thus delivers it to those who are initiated into her sacred Mysteries in order to Deification In which words Plutarch intimates that the Egyptian Fable of Osiris being Mangled and Cut in pieces by Typhon did Allegorically signifie the Discerption and Distraction of the Simple Deity by reason of the Weakness and Ignorance of vulgar minds not able to comprehend it altogether at once into several Names and Partial Notions which yet True Knowledge and Vnderstanding that is Isis makes up whole again and unites into One. XIX It is well known that the Poets though they were the Prophets of the Pagans and pretending to a kind of Divine Inspiration did otherwise embue the minds of the Vulgar with a certain Sense of Religion and the Notions of Morality yet these notwithstanding were the grand Depravers and Adulterators of the Pagan Theology For this they were guilty of upon several Accounts As First Their attributing to the Gods in their Fables concerning them all manner of Humane Imperfections Passions and Vices Which abuse of theirs the wiser of the Pagans were in all ages highly sensible of and offended with as partly appears from these Free Passages vented upon the Stage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si quis est mortalium Qui scelera patrat exigunt poenam Dei At nonne iniquum est vos suas leges quibus Gens debet hominum jure nullo vivere To this sence Since mortal men are punished by the Gods for transgressing their Laws is it not unjust that ye Gods who write these Laws should your selves live without Law And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
But that notwithstanding he asserted One Supreme and only Vnmade or Self-existent Deity is also manifest from that other Apothegm of his in Laertius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is the Oldest of all things because he is Vnmade From whence it may be concluded that all Thales his other Gods were Generated and the Off-spring of One sole Unmade Deity Pherecydes Syrus was Thales his contemporary of whom Aristotle in his Metaphysicks hath recorded that he affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the First Principle from whence all other things were Generated was the Best or an Absolutely Perfect Being So as that in the Scale of Nature things did not ascend upwards from the most Imperfect to the more Perfect Beings but on the contrary descend downwards from the most Perfect to the less Perfect Moreover Laertius informs us that this was the Beginning of one of Pherecydes his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter and Time and the Earth always were Where notwithstanding in the following words he makes the Earth to be dependent upon Jupiter Though some reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem to understand him thus that Jupiter and Saturn really one and the same Numen was always from Eternity However there is in these words an acknowledgment of One Single and Eternal Deity Pythagoras was the most eminent of all the ancient Philosophers who that he was a Polytheist as well as the other Pagans may be concluded from that Beginning of the Golden Verses though not written by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherein men are exhorted in the first place to worship the Immortal Gods and that accordingly as they were appointed by Law after them the Heroes and last of all the Terrestrial Demons And accordingly Laertius gives this account of Pythagoras his Piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he conceived men ought to worship both the Gods and the Heroes though not with equal honour And who these Gods of Pythagoras were the same Writer also declareth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they were in part at least the Sun and Moon and Stars Notwithstanding which that Pythagoras acknowledged One Supreme and Universal Numen which therefore was the Original of all those other Gods may partly appear from that Prayer in the Golden Verses which whether written by Philolaus or Lysis or some other Follower of Pythagoras were undoubtedly ancient and agreeable to his Doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter alme malis jubeas vel solvier omnes Omnibus utantur vel quonam daemone monstra Upon which Hierocles thus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was the manner of the Pythagoreans to honour the Maker and Father of this whole Vniverse with the name of Dis and Zen it being just that he who giveth Being and Life to all should be denominated from thence And again afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This very name Zeus is a convenient symbol or image of the Demiurgical Nature And they who first gave names to things were by reason of a certain wonderful Wisdom of theirs a kind of excellent Statuaries they by those several Names as Images lively representing the natures of things Moreover that this Pythagorick Prayer was directed to the Supreme Numen and King of Gods Jamblichus thus declares in his Protrepticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is an excellent exhortation of these Golden Verses to the pursuit of Divine Felicity mingled together with Prayers and the Invocation of the Gods but especially of that Jupiter who is the King of them Moreover the same might further appear from those Pythagorick Fragments that are still extant as that of Ocellus Lucanus and others who where Moralists in which as Gods are sometimes spoken of plurally so also is God often singularly used for that Supreme Deity which conteineth the whole But this will be most of all manifest from what hath been recorded concerning the Pythagorick Philosophy and its making a Monad the First Principle It is true indeed that the Writer de Placitis Philosophorum doth affirm Pythagoras to have asserted Two Substantial Principles Self-existent a Monad and a Dyad by the former of which as God is confessed to have been meant so the latter of them is declared with some uncertainty it being in one place interpreted to be a Daemon or a Principle of Evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pythagoras his First Principle is God and Good which is the Nature of Vnity and a perfect Mind but his other Principle of Duality is a Demon or Evil But in another place expounded to be Matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pythagoras his Principles were a Monad and Infinite Duality The former of them an Active Principle Mind or God the latter Passive and Matter And Plutarch in some other Writings of his declares that the First Matter did not exist alone by it self Dead and Inanimate but acted with an irrational Soul and that both these together made up that wicked Daemon of his And doubtless this Book De Placitis Philosophorum was either written by Plutarch himself or else by some Disciple and Follower of his according to his Principles Wherefore this accompt which is therein given of the Pythagorick Doctrine was probably infected with that private Conceit of Plutarch's That God and a wicked Demon or else Matter together with an Irrational Soul Self-existent were the First Principles of the Vniverse Though we do acknowledge that others also besides Plutarch have supposed Pythagoras to have made Two Self-existent Principles God and Matter but not animate nor informed as Plutarch supposed with any Irrational or wicked Soul Notwithstanding which it may well be made a Question Whether Pythagoras by his Dyad meant Matter or no because Malchus or Porphyrius in the Life of Pythagoras thus interprets those Two Pythagorick Principles of Vnity and Duality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Cause of that Sympathy Harmony and Agreement which is in things and of the conservation of the Whole which is always the same and like it self was by Pythagoras called Vnity or a Monade that Vnity which is in the things themselves being but a participation of the First Cause But the reason of Alterity Inequality and unconstant Irregularity in things was by him called a Dyad Thus acording to Porphyrius by the Pythagorick Dyad is not so much meant Matter as the Infinite and Indeterminate Nature and the Passive Capability of Things So that the Monade and Dyad of Pythagoras seem to have been the same with Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Finite and Infinite in his Philebus the Former of which Two only is Substantial that First most simple Being the cause of all Unity and the Measure of all things However if Pythagoras his Dyad be to be understood of a Substantial Matter it will not therefore follow that he supposed Matter to be Self-existent and
Independent upon the Deity since according to the best and most ancient Writers his Dyad was no Primary but a Secondary Thing only and derived from his Monad the sole Original of all things Thus Diogenes Laertius tells us that Alexander who wrote the Successions of Philosophers affirmed he had found in the Pythagorick Commentaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That a Monade was the Principle of all things but that from this Monade was derived infinite Duality as Matter for the Monade to work upon as the Active Cause With which agreeth Hermias affirming this to be one of the greatest of all the Pythagorick Mysteries that a Monade was the sole Principle of all things Accordingly whereunto Clomens Alexandrinus cites this Passage out of Thearidas an ancient Pythagorean in his Book concerning Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The true Principle of all things was only One for this was in the beginning One and Alone Which words also seem to imply the World to have had a Novity of Existence or beginning of Duration And indeed however Ocellus Lucanus write yet that Pythagoras himself did not hold the Eternity of the World may be concluded from what Porphyrius records of him where he gives an Account of that his superstitious abstinence from Beans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That at the beginning things being confounded and mingled together the Generation and Secretion of them afterwards proceeded by degrees Animals and Plants appearing at which time also from the same putrified Matter sprung up both Men and Beans Pythagoras is generally reported to have held a Trinity of Divine Hypostases and therefore when St. Cyril affirmeth Pythagoras to have called God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Animation of the whole Heavens and the Motion of all things adding that God was not as some supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Fabrick of the World but whole in the whole this seems properly to be understood of that Third Divine Hypostasis of the Pythagorick Trinity namely the Eternal Psyche Again when God is called in Plutarch according to Pythagoras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind it self this seems to be meant properly of his Second Hypostasis the Supreme Deity according to him being something above Mind or Intellect In like manner when in Cicero Pythagoras his Opinion concerning the Deity is thus represented Deum esse animum per naturam rerum omnium intentum commeantem ex quo Animi nostri carperentur That God was a Mind passing through the whole Nature of things from whom our Souls were as it were decerped or cut out And again Ex universa mente Divina delibatos esse animos nostros this in all probability was to be understood also either of the Third or Second Divine Hypostasis and not of the First which was properly called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Vnity and Monade and also as Plutarch tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Goodness it self Aristotle plainly affirmeth that some of the ancient Theologers amongst the Pagans made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Love to be the First Principle of all things that is the Supreme Deity and we have already shewed that Orpheus was one oft hese For when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Delightful Love and that which is not blind but full of Wisdom and Counsel is made by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-perfect and the Oldest of all Things it is plain that he supposed it to be nothing less than the Supreme Deity Wherefore since Pythagoras is generally affirmed to have followed the Orphick Principles we may from hence presume that he did it in this also Though it be very true that Plato who called the Supreme Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as Pythagoras did dissent from the Orphick Theology in this and would not acknowledge Love for a name of the Supreme Deity as when in his Symposion in the person of Agatho he speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though I should readily grant to Phaedrus many other things yet I cannot consent to him in this that Love was Older than Saturn and Japet but on the contrary I do affirm him to be the Youngest of the Gods as he is always youthful They who made Love Older than Saturn as well as Japhet supposed it to be the Supreme Deity wherefore Plato here on the contrary affirms Love not to be the Supreme Deity or Creator of all but a Creature a Certain Junior God or indeed as he afterwards adds not so much a God as a Daemon it being a thing which plainly implies Imperfection in it Love saith he is a Philosopher whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no God philosophizeth nor dâ—sires to be made wise because he is so already Agreably with which Doctrine of his Plotinus determines that Love is peculiar to that middle rank of Beings called Souls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Every Soul is a Venus which is also intimated by Venus her Nativity and Loves being begotten with her wherefore the Soul being in its right natural state Loves God desiring to be united with him which is a pure heavenly and virgin Love but when it descends to Generation being courted with these Amorous allurements here below and deceived by them it changeth that its Divine and Heavenly Love for another Mortal one but if it again shake off these lascivious and wanton Loves and keep it self chast from them returning back to its own Father and Original it will be rightly affected as it ought But the reason of this difference betwixt the Orpheists and Plato that the former made Love to be the Oldest of all the Gods but the latter to be a Junior God or Daemon proceeded only from an Equivocation in the word Love For Plato's Love was the Daughter of Penia that is Poverty and Indigency together with a mixture of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Riches and being so as it were compounded of Plenty and Poverty was in plain language no other than the Love of Desire which as Aristotle affirmeth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accompanied with Grief and Pain But that Orphick and Pythagorick Love was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infinite Riches and Plenty a Love of Redundancy and Overflowing Fulness delighting to communicate it self which was therefore said to be the Oldest of all things and most Perfect that is the Supreme Deity according to which notion also in the Scripture it self God seems to be called Love though the word be not there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But to say the Truth Parmenides his Love however made a Principle somewhere by Aristotle seems to be neither exactly the same with the Orphick nor yet with the Platonick Love it being not the Supreme Deity and yet the First of the Created Gods which appears from Simplicius his connecting these Two
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
is common or the same to them both to the Ruler and them that are Ruled but they that are ruled could not orderly conspire and agree together into one work were they destitute of a Leader as the Singers and Dancers could not conspire together into one Dance and Harmony were they destitute of a Coryphaeus nor Soldiers make up one orderly Army were they without a Captain or Commander And as the Supreme God is here called by Onatus the Coryphaeus of the Gods so is he in like manner by the Writer De Mundo stiled the Coryphaeus of the World or the Praecentor and Presultor of it in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As in a Chorus when the Coryphaeus or Precentor hath begun the whole Quire compounded of men and sometimes of women too followeth singing every one their part some in higher and some in lower notes but all mingling together into one complete Harmony so in the world God as the Coryphaeus the Praecentor and Praesultor beginning the Dance and Musick the Stars and Heavens move round after him according to those numbers and measures which he prescribes them all together making up one most excellent Harmony It was also before observed that Ecphantus the Pythagorean and Archelaus the Successor of Anaxagoras who were both of them Atomists in their Physiology did assert the World to have been Made at First and still to be governed by One Divine Mind which is more than some Atomists of ours in this present age who notwithstanding pretend to be very good Theists will acknowledge We shall in the next place mention Euclides Megarensis the Head of that Sect called Megarick and who is said to have been Plato's Master for some time after Socrates his death whose Doctrine is thus set down by Laertius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which we understand thus That Euclides who followed Xenophanes and Parmenides made the First Principle of all things to be One the very Good called sometimes Wisdom sometimes God sometimes Mind and sometimes by other Names but that he took away all that is Opposite to Good denying it to have any Real Entity that is he maintained that there was no Positive Nature of Evil or that Evil was no Principle And thus do we also understand that of Cicero when he represents the Doctrine of the Megaricks after this manner Id bonum solum esse quod esset Vnum Simile Idem Semper to wit that they spake this concerning God that Good or Goodness it self is a Name properly belonging to him who is also One and Like and the Same and Alwayes and that the true Good of man consisteth in a Participation of and Conformity with this First Good Which Doctrine Plato seems to have derived from him he in like manner calling the Supreme Deity by those Two Names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One and the Good and concluding true humane Felicity to consist in a Participation of the First Good or of the Divine Nature In the next place we shall take notice of Antisthenes who was the Founder also of another Sect to wit the Cynick for he in a certain Physiological Treatise is said to have affirmed Esse Populares Deos Multos sed Naturalem Vnum That though there were many Popular Gods yet there was but One Natural God Or as it is expressed in Lactantius Vnum esse Naturalem Deum quamvis Gentes Vrbes suos habeant Populares That there was but One Natural God though Nations and Cities had their Several Popular Ones Wherefore Velleius the Epicurean in Cicero quarrels with this Antisthenes as one who destroyed the Nature of Gods because he denied a Multitude of Independent Deities such as Epicurus pretended to assert For this of Antisthenes is not so to be understood as if he had therein designed to take away all the Inferiour Gods of the Pagans which had he at all attempted he would doubtless have been accounted an Atheist as well as Anaxagoras was but his meaning was only to interpret the Theology of the Pagans concerning those other Gods of theirs that were or might be look'd upon as Absolute and Independent that these though Many Popular Gods yet indeed were but One and the same Natural God called by several Names As for example when the Greeks worshipped Zeus the Latins Jovis the Egyptians Hammon the Babylonians Bel the Scythians Pappaeus these were indeed many Popular Gods and yet nevertheless all but One and the same Natural God So again when in the self same Pagan Cities and Countries the respective Laws thereof made mention of several Gods as Supreme and Absolute in their several Territories as Jupiter in the Heavens Juno in the Air Neptune in the Sea or as being Chief in several kinds and Functions as Minerva for Learning Bellona for War c. for this Aristotle takes notice of in his Book against Zeno 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That according to the Laws of Cities and Countries one God was Best for one thing and another for another Antisthenes here declared concerning these also that they were indeed Many Popular or Civil Gods but all really One and the same Natural God To Antisthenes might be added Diogenes Sinopensis of whom it is recorded by Laertius that observing a Woman too superstitiously worshipping the Statue or Image of a God endeavouring to abate her Superstition he thus bespake her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take you not care O Woman of not behaving your self unseemly in the sight of that God who stands behind you for all things are full of him Thereby giving her occasion more to mind and regard that Supreme and Universal Numen that filleth the whole World and is every where XXIII It hath been frequently affirmed that Socrates died a Martyr for One only God in opposition to those Many Gods of the Pagans and Tertullian for one writeth thus of him Proptereà damnatus est Socrates quia Deos destruebat Socrates was therefore condemned to die because he destroyed the Gods And indeed that Socrates asserted one Supreme God the Maker and Governour of the whole World is a thing not at all to be doubted In his discourse with Aristodemus in Xenophon's first Book of Memoirs he convinced him that the things of this world were not made by Chance but by Mind and Counsel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am now convinced from what you say that the things of this world were the workmanship of some wise Artificer who also was a Lover of animals And so he endeavoured to perswade him that that Mind and Understanding which is in us was derived from some Mind and Understanding in the Universe as well as that Earth and Water which is in us from the Earth and Water of the Universe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you think that you only have Wisdom in your self and that there is none any where else in the whole World without you though you know that you
which seems to be a Probable Opinion Wherefore since according to Plato the Soul of the World which is the chief of all his Inferiour Gods was not Self-existent but Made or Produced by God in time all those other Gods of his which were but Parts of the World as the Sun Moon Stars and Demons must needs be so too But lest any should suspect that Plato might for all that suppose the World and its Gods not to have been made by One only Unmade God but by a Multitude of Co-ordinate Self-existent Principles or Deities conspiring we shall observe that the contrary hereunto is plainly declared by him in way of answer to that Quaere Whether or no there were Many and infinite Worlds as some Philosophers had maintained or only One he Resolving it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether have we rightly affirmed that there is only One Heaven or World or is it more agreeable to reason to hold Many or Infinite We say there is but One if it be made agreeable to its Intellectual Paradigm conteining the Ideas of all Animals and other things in it For there can be but One Archetypal Animal which is the Paradigm of all created Beings wherefore that the World may agree with its Paradigms in this respect of Solitude or Onliness therefore is it not Two nor Infinite but One-only-begotten His meaning is that there is but One Archetypal Mind the Demiurgus or Maker of all things that were produced and therefore but One World And this One God which according to Plato was the Maker of the whole World is frequently called by him in his Timaeus and elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God or The God by way of Excellency sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Architect or Artificer of the World sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Maker and Father of this Vniverse whom it is hard to find out but impossible to declare to the Vulgar again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God over all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Creator of Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sole Principle of the Vniverse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cause of all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind the King of all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Sovereign Mind which orders all things and passes through all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Governour of the Whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which always is and was never made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greatest God and the Greatest of the Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that Generated or Produced the Sun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that makes Earth and Heaven and the Gods and doth all things both in Heaven and Hell and under the Earth Again he by whose Efficiency the Things of the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were afterwards made when they were not Before or from an Antecedent Non-existence brought forth into Being This Philosopher somewhere intimating that it was as easie for God to produce those Real Things the Sun Moon Stars and Earth c. from himself as it is for us to produce the Images of our selves and whatsoever else we please only by interposing a Looking-glass Lastly he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that Causeth or produceth both All other things and even Himself the meaning whereof is this He that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the same Plato also calls him a Self-originated Being and from no other Cause besides Himself but the Cause of All other things Neither doth Lactantius Firmianus himself refuse to speak of God after this very manner that Scipsum secit and that he was Ex Seipso procreatus propterea Talis Qualem se esse voluit that He made Himself and that being Procreated from Himself He therefore was every way such as he Willed himself to be Which unusual and bold strain of Theology is very much insisted upon by Plotinus in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning the Will of the First One or Vnity He there writing thus of the Supreme God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is the Cause of himself and he is from Himself and Himself is for Himself And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is He who is the Maker of himself and is Lord over himself in a certain sence for he was not made that which Another willed him to be but he is that which he willeth himself to be Moreover 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Supreme Deity loving himself as a Pure Light is himself what he loved Thus as it were begetting and giving subsistence to himself he being a standing Energy Wherefore since God is a Work or Energy and yet he is not the Work or Energy of any other Being he must needs be in some sence his own Work or Energy so that God is not that which he happened to be but that which he willeth himself to be Thus also a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We must of necessity make Will and Essence the same in the First Being Wherefore since his Willing is from himself his Being must needs be from himself too the consequence of which Ratiocination is this that He made himself For if his volition be from himself and his own work and this be the same with his Hypostasis or Substance he may be then said to have given subsistence to himself Wherefore he is not what he happen'd to be but what he willed himself to be But because this is so unusual a Notion we shall here set down yet one or two passages more of this Philosophers concerning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Essence of the Supreme God is not without his Will but his Will and Essence are the same so that God concurreth with Himself himself willing to be as he is and being that which he willeth and his Will and Himself being one and the same For Himself is not One thing as happening to be that whichhe is and that he would will to be Another For what could God will to be but that which he is And if we should suppose that it were in his own choice to be what he would and that he had liberty to change his Nature into whatsoever else he pleased it is certain that he would neither will to be any thing else besides what he is nor complain of himself as being now that which he is out of necessity he being indeed no other but that which himself hath willed and doth always will to be For his Will is his Essential Goodness so that his Will doth not follow his Nature but concurr with it in the very Essence of this Good there being contained his Choice and Willing of himself to be such Lastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is all Will nor is there any thing in him which he doth not Will nor is his
by the Fear of Divine Punishments and Vengeance after Death since this opinion of Torments after death is liable to much Exception and the contrary is not without Probabilities so that it seems to be but like to Womens frighting of Children from doing unhappy tricks with those Bugbears of Accho and Alphito But how fondly these Stoicks doted upon that Hypothesis That all was Body may appear from hence that they maintained even Accidents and Qualities themselves to be Bodies for Voice and Sound Night and Day Evening and Morning Summer and Winter nay Calends and Nones Months and Years were Bodies with them And not only so but also the Qualities of the Mind it self as Virtue and Vice together with the Motions and Affections of it as Anger and Envy Grief and Joy according to that passage in Seneca Corporis Bona sunt Corpora Corpora ergo sunt quae animi nam hic Corpus est The Goods of a Body are Bodies now the Mind is a Body and therefore the Goods of the Mind are Bodies too And with as good Logick as this did they further infer that all the Actions Passions and Qualities of the Mind were not only Bodies but also Animals likewise Animam constat Animal esse cum ipsa efficiat ut simus Animalia Virtus autem nihil aliud est quà m Animus taliter se habens ergo Animal est It is manifest that the Soul is an Animal because it is that by which we are made Animals now Vertue and Vice are nothing else but the Soul so and so affected or modified and therefore these are Animals too Thus we see what fine Conclusions these Doters upon Body though accounted great Masters of Logick made and how they were befooled in their Ratiocinations and Philosophy Nevertheless though these Stoicks were such Sottish Corporealists yet were they not for all that Atheists they resolving that Mind or Vnderstanding though always lodged in Corporeal Substance yet was not first of all begotten out of Sensless Matter so or so Modified but was an Eternal Vnmade thing and the Maker of the whole Mundane System And therefore as to that Controversie so much agitated amongst the Ancients Whether the World were made by Chance or by the Necessity of Material Motions or by Mind Reason and Vnderstanding they avowedly maintained that it was neither by Chance nor by Material Necessity but Divinâ Mente by a Divine and Eternal Mind every way perfect From which One Eternal Mind they also affirmed Humane Souls to have been derived and not from Sensless Matter Prudentiam Mentem â Diis ad Homines pervenisse that Mind and Wisdom descended down to Men from the Deity And that Ratio nihil aliud est quà m in Corpus humanum Pars Divini Spiritus mersa Reason is nothing else but Part of the Divine Spirit merg'd into a Humane Body so that these Humane Souls were to them no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 certain Parts of God or Decerptions and Avulsions from him Neither were the Reasons by which these Stoicks would prove the World to have had a Divine Original at all Contemptible or much inferiour to those which have been used in these Latter days they being such as these First That it is no more likely this Orderly System of the World should have been made by Chance than that Ennius his Annals or Homer's Iliads might have resulted from the Fortuitous Projection or Tumbling out of so many Forms of Letters confounded all together There being as much continued and coherent Sence and as many several Combinations in this Real Poem of the World as there is in any Phantastick Poem made by men And since we see no Houses or Cities no Books or Libraries any where made by the fortuitous Motions of Matter it is a madness to think that this Admirable Compages of the whole World should first have resulted from thence Again There could not possibly be such an Agreeing and Conspiring Cognation of things and such a Vniversal Harmony throughout the whole World as now there is nisi ea Vno Divino Continuato Spiritu continerentur were they not all conteined by One and the same Divine Spirit Which is the most obvious Argument for the Unity or Onelyness of the Deity They reasoned also from the Scale of Nature or the Gradual Perfection of things in the Universe one above another That therefore there must be something Absolutely Perfect and that either the World it self or something presiding over it was à Principio Sapiens Wise from the Beginning or rather without Beginning and from Eternity For as in the Growth of Plants and Animals Naturae suo quodam Itinere ad Vltimum pervenit Nature by a Continual Progress and Journeying forwards arrives at length to the greatest Perfection which those things are respectively capable of And as those Arts of Picture and Architecture aim at Perfection ita in omni Naturâ necesse est Absolvi aliquid Perfici so in the Nature of the whole Vniverse there must needs be something Absolutely Perfect reach'd unto Necesse est praestantem aliquam esse Naturam qua nihil est Melius Since there is such a Gradual Ascent and Scale of Perfections in Nature one above another there must needs be some most Excellent and Perfect Being than which nothing can be Better at the Top of all as the Head thereof Moreover they disputed Socratically after this manner Vnde arripuit Homo Vitam Mentem Rationem Whence did man snatch Life Reason or Vnderstanding Or from what was it Kindled in him For is it not plain that we derive the Moisture and Fluidity of our Bodies from the Water that is in the Vniverse their Consistency and Solidity from the Earth their Heat and Activity from the Fire and their Spirituosity from the Air Illud autem quod vincit haec omnia Rationem Mentem Consilium c. Vbi invenimus unde sustulimus An caetera Mundus habebit omnia Hoc unum quod plurimi est non habebit But that which far transcendeth all these things our Reason Mind and Vnderstanding where did we find it or from whence did we derive it Hath the Vniverse all those other things of ours in it and in a far greater proportion and hath it nothing at all of that which is the most excellent thing in us Nihil quod Animi quodque Rationis est expers id generare ex se potest Animantes compotesque Rationis Mundus autem generat Animantes compotes Rationis Nothing that is devoid of Mind and Reason can Generate things Animant and Rational but the World Generateth such and therefore it self or that which conteins it and presides over it must needs be Animant and Rational or Intellectual Which Argumentation is further set home by such Similitudes as these Si ex Oliva modulatè canentes Tibiae nascerentur non dubitares quin esset in Oliva Tibicinis quaedam Scientia Quid si
Tu Jupiter alme tonans in nubibus atris Da sapere mentem miseris mortalibus aufer Insanam hanc Tu pelle Pater da apprendere posse Consilium fretus quo Tu omnia rite gubernas Nos ut honorati pariter tibi demus honorem Perpetuis tua facta hymnis praeclara canentes Vt fas est homini nec enim mortalibus ullum Nec Superis majus poterit contingere donum Quam canere aeterno Communem carmine Legem XXVI It would be endless now to cite all the Testimonies of other Philosophers and Pagan Writers of Latter times concerning One Supreme and Universal Numen Wherefore we shall content our selves only to instance in some of the most remarkable beginning with M. Tull. Cicero Whom though some would suspect to have been a Sceptick as to Theism because in his De Natura Deorum he brings in Cotta the Academick as well opposing Q. Lucil. Balbus the Stoick as C. Velleius the Epicurean yet from sundry other places of his writings it sufficiently appears that he was a Dogmatick and Hearty Theist as for example this in his second Book De Divin Esse Praestantem aliquam Aeternamque naturam eam suspiciendam admirandamque hominum generi Pulchritudo Mundi ordoque rerum Coelestium cogit confiteri That there is some Most Excellent and Eternal Nature which is to be admired and honoured by mankind the Pulchritude of the World and the order of the Heavenly Bodies compell us to confess And this in his Oration De Haruspicum responsis Quis est tam vecors qui cum suspexerit in Coelum Deos esse non sentiat ea quae tanta Mente fiunt ut vix quisquam Arte ulla Ordinem rerum ac Vicissitudinem persequi posset casu fieri putet Who is so mad or stupid as when he looks up to Heaven is not presently convinced that there are Gods or can perswade himself that those things which are made with so much Mind and Wisdom as that no humane skill is able to reach and comprehend the artifice and contrivance of them did all happen by chance To which purpose more places will be afterwards cited However in his Philosophick Writings it is certain that he affected to follow the way of the New Academy set on foot by Carneades that is to write Sceptically partly upon Prudential accounts and partly for other Reasons intimated by himself in these words Qui requirunt quid quaque de re ipsi sentiamus curiosiùs id faciunt quam necesse est Non enim tam Authoritatis in disputando quam Rationis momenta quaerenda sunt Quinetiam obest plerumque iis qui discere volunt Aâ—ctoritas eorum qui se docere profitentur Desinunt enim suum judicium adhihere idquâ— habent ratum quod ab eo quem probant judicatum vident Thâ—y who would needs know what we our selves think concerning every thing are more curious than they ought because Philosophy is not so much a matter of Authority as of Reason and the Authority of those who profess to teach is oftentimes an hindrance to the Learners they neglâ—â—â—ing by that means to use their own Judgment securely taking that for granted which is judged by another whom they value Nevertheless Cicero in the Close of this discourse De Natura Deorum as St. Austin also observeth plainly declares himself to be more propense and inclinable to the Doctrine of Balbus than either that of Velleius or Cotta that is though he did not assent to the Stâ—ical Doctrine or Theology in every Point himself being rather a Platonist than a Stoick yet he did much prefer it before not only the Epicureism of Velleius but also the Scepticism of Cotta Wherefore Augustinus Steuchus and other Learned men quarrel with sundry passages of Cicero's upon another account not as Atheistical but as seeming to favour a Multitude of Independent Gods he sometimes attributing not only the Government of the World and the making of Mankind but also he first Constitution and Fabrick of the whole World to Gods Plurally As when he writeth thus Vt perpetuus Mundi esset ornatus magna adhibita cura est à Providentia Deorum For the perpetual adorning of the World great care hath been taken by the Providence of the Gods And A Diis Immortalibus Hominibus provisum esse c. That the Immortal Gods have provided for the Convenience of Mankind appears from the very Fabrick and Figure of them And that place before cited Dico igitur Providentia Deorum Mundum omnes Mundi partes initio constitutas esse I say that the World and all its parts were at first constituted by the Providence of the Gods And Lastly where he states the Controversie of that Book De N. D. thus Vtrum Dii nihil agant nihil moliantur An contrà ab His à Principio Omnia facta constituta sint ad insinitum tempus regantur atque mâ—veantur Whether the Gods do nothing at all but are void of care and trouble or whether all things were at first Made and Constituted and ever since are Moved and Governed by them Notwithstanding which it is Evident that this Learned Orator and Philosopher plainly acknowledged the Monâ—rchy of the Whole or One Supreme and Vniversal Numen over all And that first from his so often using the word God in the Singular Emphatically and by way of Eminency as Ipsi Deo nihil minus gratum quà ◠non omnibus patere ad se Placandum Colendum viam Nothing can be less grateful to God himself than that there should not be a liberty open to all by reason of the Costliness of Sacrifices to worâ—â— panâ—l appease him And Nisi juvante Deo tales non fuerunt Curius Fabricius c. Curius and Fabricius had never been such menas they were had it not been for the Divine assistance Again Commoda quibus utimur Lucemque quà fruimur Spiritumque quem ducimus à Deo nobis dari atque impertiri videmus We must needs acknowledge that the benefits of this life the light which we enjoy and the spirit which we breath are imparted to us from God And to mention no more in his Version of Plato's Timaeus Deos alios in Terra alios in Luna alios in reliquas mundi partes spargens Deus quasi serebat God distributing Gods to all the parts of the World did as it were sow some Gods in the Earth some in the Moon c. Moreover by his making such descriptions of God as plainly imply his Oneness and Singularity as in his Orat. pro Milone Est est profectò Illa Vis neque in his Corporibus atque in hac Imbecillitate nostrâ inest quiddam quod vigeat sentiat non inest in hoc tanto Naturae tamque praeclaro motu Nisi fortè idcirco esse non putant quia non apparet nec cernitur proinde quasi nostram ipsam
omne convenit Ex quo nata sunt omnia Cujus Spiritu vivimus Totum suis partibus inditum se sustinentem sua vi Cujus Consilio huic mundo providetur ut inconcussus eat actus suos explicet Cujus Decreto omnia fiunt Divinum Spiritum per omnia maxima minima aequali intentione diffusum Deum potentem omnium Deum illum maximum potentissimumque qui ipse vehit omnia Qui ubique omnibus praesto est Coeli Deorum omnium Deum a quo ista Numina quae singula adoramus colimus suspensa sunt and the like The Framer and Former of the Vniverse the Governour Disposer and keeper thereof Him upon whom all things depend The Mind and Spirit of the World The Artificer and Lord of this whole Mundane Fabrick To whom every name belongeth From whom all things spring By whose Spirit we live Who is in all his parts and susteineth himself by his own force By whose Counsel the World is provided for and carried on in its Course constantly and uninterruptedly By whose Decree all things are done The Divine Spirit that is diffused through all things both great and small with equal intention The God whose power extends to all things The Greatest and most Powerful God who doth himself support and uphold all things Who is present every where to all things The God of Heaven and of all the Gods upon whom are suspended all those other Divine Powers which we singly worship and adore Moreover we may here observe from St. Austin that this Seneca in a Book of his against Superstitions that is now lost did not only Highly extol the Natural Theology but also plainly censure and condemn the Civil Theology then received amongst the Romans and that with more Freedom and Vehemency than Varro had done the Fabulous or Theatrical and Poetical Theology Concerning a great part whereof he pronounced that a wise man would observe such things tanquam Legibus jussa non tanquam Diis grata only as commanded by the Laws he therein exercising Civil Obedience but not at all as Grateful to the Gods M. Fabius Quintilianus though no admirer of Seneca yet fully agreed with him in the same Natural Theology and sets down this as the generally received Notion or Definition of God Deum esse Spiritum omnibus partibus immistum That God is a Spirit mingled with and diffused through all the part◠of the World he from thence inferring Epicurus to be an Atheist notwithstanding that he verbally asserted Gods because he denyed a God according to this Generally received Notion he bestowing upon his Gods a circumscribed humane form and placing them between the Worlds And the Junior Pliny though he were a Persecutor of the Christians he concluding qualecunque esset quod faterentur pervicaciam certè inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri that whatsoever their Religion were yet notwithstanding their Stubbornness and Inflexible Obstinacy ought to be punished and who compelled many of them to worship the Images of the Emperour and to sacrifice and pray to the Statues of the Pagan Gods and lastly to blaspheme Christ yet himself plainly acknowledged also One Supreme Universal Numen as may sufficiently appear from his Panegyrick Oration to Trajan where he is called Deus ille qui manifestus ac praesens Coelum ac Sydera insidet that God who is present with and inhabits the whole Heaven and Stars himself making a Solemn Prayer and Supplication to him both in the beginning and close thereof and sometimes speaking of him therein Singularly and in way of Eminency as in these words Occultat utrorumque Semina Deus plerumque Bonorum Malorumque Causae sub diversâ specie latent God hideth the Seeds of good and evil so that the causes of each often appear disguised to men L. Apuleius also whose pretended Miracles the Pagans endeavoured to confirm their Religion by as well as they did by those of Apollonius doth in sundry places of his writings plainly assert One Supreme and Vniversal Numen we shall only here set down one Cum Summus Deorum cuncta haec non solùm cogitationum ratione consideret sed Prima Media Vltima obeat compertaque intimae Providentiae ordinationis universitate Constantia regat Since the Highest of the Gods does not only consider all these things in his mind and Cogitation but also pass through and comprehend within himself the Beginning Middle and End of all things and constantly Govern all by his occult Providence Lastly Symmachus who was a zealous Stickler for the Restitution of Paganism declared the Pagans to worship One and the same God with the Christians but in several ways he conceiving that there was no necessity God should be worshipped by all after the same manner Aequum est quicquid omnes colunt VNVM putari Eadem spectamus Astra Commune Coelum est Idem nos Mundus involvit Quid interest qua quisque prudentia Verum requirat Vno Itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande Secretum We ought in reason to think that it is One and the same Thing which all men worship As we all behold the same Stars have the same Common Heaven and are involved within the same World Why may not men pursue One and the same thing in different ways One Path is not enough to lead men to so Grand a Secret The Sence whereof is thus elegantly expressed by Prudentius Vno omnes sub sole siti vegetamur eodem Aere Communis cunctis viventibus Aura Sed quid sit qualisque Deus diversa secuti Quaerimus atque Viis longè distantibus Unum Imus ad Occultum suus est mos cuique genti Per quod iter properans eat ad tam Grande Profundum And again afterward Secretum sed grande nequit Rationis opertae Quaeri aliter quà m si sparsis via multiplicetur Tramitibus centenos terat orbita calles Quaesitura Deum variata indage latentem And the beginning of Prudentius his Confutation is this Longè aliud verum est Nam multa ambago viarum Anfractus dubios habet perplexius errat Sola errore caret simplex via nescia flecti In diverticulum biviis nec pluribus anceps c. We shall now instance also in some of the Latter Greek Writers Though the Author of the Book De Mundo were not Aristotle yet that he was a Pagan plainly appears from some passages thereof as where he approves of Sacrificing to the Gods and of Worshipping Heroes and Dead men as also because Apuleius would not otherwise have translated so much of that book and incorporated it into his De Mundo He therefore does not only commend this of Heraclitus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there is one Harmonious System made out of all things and that All things are derived from One But doth himself also write excellently concerning the Supreme God whom he
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
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
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
Powers all of them salutiferous and procuring the good of that which is made c. Moreover by these Powers and out of them is the Incorporeal and Intelligible World compacted which is the Archetype of this visible World that consisting of Invisible Ideas as this doth of visible Bodies Wherefore some admiring with a kind of astonishment the Nature of both these worlds have not only Deified the whole of them but also the most excellent parts in them as the Sun and the Moon and the whole Heaven which they scruple not at all to call Gods Where Philo seems to speak of a double Sun Moon and Heaven as Julian did the one Sensible the other Intelligible Moreover Plotinus himself sometimes complies with this Notion he calling the Ideas of the Divine Intellect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intelligible Gods as in that place before cited where he exhorteth men ascending upward above the Soul of the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To praise the Intelligible Gods that is the Divine Intellect which as he elsewhere written is both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and Many We have now given a full account of Apuleius his sence in that Book De Deo Socratis concerning the Civil and Poetical Pagan Gods which was not to assert a Multitude of Substantial and Eternal Deities or Minds Independent in them but only to reduce the Vulgar Theology of the Pagans both their Civil and Poetical into some conformity with the Natural Real and Philosophick Theology and this according to Platonick Principles Wherein many other of the Pagan Platonists both before and after Christianity concurred with him they making the Many Pagan Invisible Gods to be really nothing but the Eternal Ideas of the Divine Intellect called by them the Parts of the Intelligible and Archetypal World which they supposed to have been the Paradigms and Patterns according to which this Sensible World and all Particular things therein were made and upon which they depended they being only Participations of them Wherefore though this may well be look'd upon as a Monstrous Extravagancy in these Platonick Philosophers thus to talk of the Divine Ideas or the Intelligible and Archetypal Paradigms of things not only as Substantial but also as so many several Animals Persons and Gods it being their humour thus upon all slight occasions to multiply Gods yet nevertheless must it be acknowledged that they did at the very same time declare all these to have been derived from One Supreme Deity and not only so but also to exist in it as they did likewise at other times when unconcerned in this business of their Pagan Polytheism freely acknowledge all these intelligible Ideas to be Really nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conceptions in the Mind of God or the First Intellect though not such Slight Accidental and Evanid ones as those Conceptions and Modifications of our humane Souls are and consequently not to be so many Distinct Substances Persons and Gods much less Independent Ones but only so many Partial Considerations of the Deity What a Rabble of Invisible Gods and Goddesses the Pagans had besides those their Dii Nobiles and Dii Majorum Gentium their Noble and Greater Gods which were the Consentes and Selecti hath been already showed out of St. Austin from Varro and others as namely Dea Mena Deus Vagitanus Dea Levana Dea Cunina Diva Rumina Diva Potina Diva Educa Diva Paventina Dea Venilia Dea Agenoria Dea Stimula Dea Strenua Dea Numeria Deus Consus Dea Sentia Deus Jugatinus Dea Virginensis Deus Mutinus To which might be added more out of other places of the same St. Austin as Dea Deverra Deus Domiducus Deus Domitius Dea Manturna Deus Pater Subigus Dea Mater Prema Dea Pertunda Dea Rusina Dea Collatina Dea Vallonia Dea Seia Dea Segetia Dea Tutilina Deus Nodotus Dea Volutina Dea Patelena Dea Hostilina Dea Flora Dea Lacturtia Dea Matura Dea Runcina Besides which there are yet so many more of these Pagan Gods and Goddesses extant in other Writers as that they cannot be all mentioned or enumerated by us divers whereof have Very Small Mean and Contemptible Offices assigned to them as their names for the most part do imply some of which are such as that they were not fit to be here interpreted From whence it plainly appears that there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing at all without a God to these Pagans they having so strong a Perswasion that Divine Providence extended it self to all things and expressing it after this manner by assigning to Every thing in Nature and Every part of the World and whatsoever was done by men some particular God or Goddess by name to preside over it Now that the Intelligent Pagans should believe in good earnest that all these Invisible Gods and Goddesses of theirs were so many Several Substantial Minds or Vnderstanding Beings Eternal and Vnmade really existing in the World is a thing in it self Vtterly Incredible For how could any possibly perswade themselves that there was One Eternal Unmade Mind or Spirit which for example Essentially presided over The Rockings of Infants Cradles and nothing else another over the Sweeping of Houses another over Ears of Corn another over the Husks of Grain and another over the Knots of Straw and Grass and the like And the Case is the very same for those other Noble Gods of theirs as they call them the Consentes and Selecti since there can be no reason given why those should all of them be so many Substantial and Eternal Spirits Self-existent or Vnmade if none of the other were such Wherefore if these be not all so many Several Substantial and Eternal Minds so many Selfexisting and Independent Deities then must they of necessity be either Several Partial Considerations of the Deity viz. the Several Manifestations of the Divine Power and Providence Personated or else Inferiour Ministers of the same And thus have we already shewed that the more High-flown and Platonick Pagans as Julian Apuleius and others understood these Consentes and Select Gods and all the other Invisible ones to be really nothing else but the Ideas of the Intelligible and Archetypal World which is the Divine Intellect that is indeed but Partial Considerations of the Deity as Vertually and Exemplarily conteining all things whilst others of them going in a more plain and easie way concluded these Gods of theirs to be all of them but several Names and Notions of the One Supreme Deity according to the Various Manifestations of its Power in the world as Seneca expresly affirmeth not only concerning Fate Nature and Fortune c. but also Liber Pater Hercules and Mercury before mentioned by him that they were Omnia ejusdem Dei Nomina variè utentis suâ potestate all Names of One and the same God as diversly using his power and as Zeno in Laertius concludes of all the rest or else which amounts to the same thing that they were the Several Powers and Vertues
Hope Virtue Honour Victory Health Concord and the like we see them to have the Force of Things but not of Gods Because they either exist in us as Mind Hope Virtue Concord or else they are desired to happen to us as Honour Health Victory that is they are nothing but meer Accidents or Affections of Things and therefore how they can have the Force of Gods in them cannot possibly be understood And again afterwards he affirmeth Eos qui Dii appellantur Rerum Naturas esse non Figuras Deorum That those who in the Allegorical Mythology of the Pagans are called Gods are really but the Natures of Things and not the True Figures or Forms of Gods Wherefore since the Pagans themselves acknowledged that those Personated and Deified Things of Nature were not True and Proper Gods the meaning of them could certainly be no other than this that they were so many Several Names and Partial Considerations of One Supreme God as manifesting himself in all the Things of Nature For that Vis or Force which Cicero tells us was that in all these things which was called God or Deified is really no other than Something of God in Every Thing that is Good Neither do we otherwise understand those following words of Balbus in Cicero Quarum Rerum quia Vis erat tanta ut sine Deo regi non posset ipsa Res Deorum Nomen obtinuit Of which things because the Force is such as that it could not be Governed without God therefore have the Things themselves obteined the Names of Gods that is God was acknowledged and worshipped in them all which was Paganically thus signified by Calling of them Gods And Pliny though no very Divine Person yet being ingenious easily understood this to be the meaning of it Fragilis laboriosa Mortalitas in Partes ista digessit Infirmitatis suae memor ut Portionibus quisque coleret quo maximò indigeret Frail and toilsom Mortality has thus broken and crumbled the Deity into Parts mindful of its own Infirmity that so every one by Parcels and Pieces might worship that in God which himself most stands in need of Which Religion of the Pagans thus worshipping God not entirely all together at once as he is One most Simple Being Unmixed with any thing but as it were brokenly and by piece-meals as he is severally Manifested in all the Things of Nature and the Parts of the World Prudentius thus perstringeth in his Second Book against Symmachus Tu me praeterito meditaris Numina mille Quae simules parere meis Virtutibus ut me Per varias partes minuas cui nulla recidi Pars aut Forma potest quia sum Substantia Simplex Nec Pars esse queo From which words of his we may also conclude that Symmachus the Pagan who determined That it was One Thing that all worshipped and yet would have Victory and such like other things worshipped as Gods and Goddesses did by these and all those other Pagan Gods before mentioned understand nothing but so many Several Names and Partial Considerations of One Supreme Deity according to its several Vertues or Powers so that when he sacrificed to Victory he sacrificed to God Almighty under that Partial Notion as the Giver of Victory to Kingdoms and Commonwealths It was before observed out of Plutarch that the Egyptian Fable of Osiris being mangled and cut in pieces by Typhon did Allegorically signifie the same thing viz. the One Simple Deity 's being as it were divided in the Fabulous and Civil Theologies of the Pagans into many Partial Considerations of him as so many Nominal and Titular Gods which Isis notwithstanding that is True Knowledge and Wisdom according to the Natural or Philosophick Theology unites all together into One. And that not only such Gods as these Victory Vertue and the like but also those other Gods Neptune Mars Bellona c. were all really but one and the same Jupiter acting severally in the world Plautus himself seems sufficiently to intimate in the Prologue of his Amphitryo in these words Nam quid ego memorem ut alios in Tragaediis Vidi Neptunum Virtutem Victoriam Martem Bellonam commemorare quae bona Vobis fecissent Queis Benefactis meus Pater Deûm Regnator Architectus omnibus Whereas there was before cited a Passage out of G. I. Vossius his Book De Theolog. Gent. which we could not understand otherwise than thus that the generality of the Pagans by their Political or Civil Gods meant so many Eternal Minds Independent and Self-Existent we now think our selves concerned to do Vossius so much right as to acknowledge that we have since met with another place of his in that same Book wherein he either corrects the former Opinion or else declares himself better concerning it after this manner that the Pagans generally conceived their Political Gods to be so many Substantial Minds or Spirits not Independent and Self-existent nor indeed Eternal neither but Created by One Supreme Mind or God and appointed by him to preside over the Several Parts of the World and Things of Nature as his Ministers Which same thing he affirmeth also of those Deified Accidents and Affections that by them were to be understood so many Substantial Minds or Spirits Created presiding over those several Things or dispensing of them His words in the beginning of his Eighth Book where he speaks concerning these Affections and Accidents Deified by the Pagans are as followeth Hujusmodi Deorum propè immensa est copia Ac in Civili quidem Theologia considerari solent tanquam Mentes quaedam hoc honoris à Summo Deo sortitae ut Affectionibus istis praeessent Nempe crediderunt Deum quem Optimum Max. vocabant non per se omnia curare quo pacto ut dicebant plurimum beatitudini ejus decederet sed instar Regis plurimos habere Ministros Ministras quorum singulos huic illive curae prefecisset Sic Justitia quae Astraea ac Themis praefecta erat actibus cunctis in quibus Justitia attenderetur Comus curare creditus est Comessationes Et sic in caeteris id genus Diis nomen ab ea Affectione sortitis cujus cura cuique commissa crederetur Quo pacto si considerentur non aliter different à Spiritibus sive Angelis bonis malisque quam quòd hi reverà à Deo conditi sint illae verò Mentes de quibus nunc loquimur sint Figmentum Mentis humanae pro numero Assectionum in quibus Vis esse major videretur comminiscentis Mentes Affectionibus Singulis praefectas Facilè autem Sacerdotes suà Commenta persuadere simplicioribus potuerunt quia satis videretur verisimile summae illi Menti Deorum omnium Regi innumeras servire mentes ut eò perfectior sit Summi Dei beatitudo minusque curis implicetur inque tot Famulantium numero Summi Numinis Majestas magis eluceat Ac talis quidem Opinio erat Theologiae Civilis Of such Gods
too in another sence that is Produced and Derived by way of Emanation from that One who is every way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnderived and Independent upon any other Cause And thus Proclus Universally pronounces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the Gods owe their Being Gods to the First God He adding that he is therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fountain of the Godhead Wherefore the Many Gods of the Intelligent Pagans were derived from One God and but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch somewhere calls them The Subservient Powers or Ministers of the One Supreme Vnmade Deity Which as hath been before observed was frequently called by these Pagans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in way of Eminency as likewise were those other Inferiour or Generated Gods in way of distinction from him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gods And accordingly the sence of Celsus is thus represented in Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Gods were the Makers of the Bodies of all Animals the Souls of them only being the Work of God Moreover these Inferiour Gods are styled by Ammianus Marcellinus Substantiales Potestates Substantial Powers probably in way of distinction from those other Pagan Gods that were not Substantial but only so many Names and Notions of the One Supreme God or his Powers severally Personated and Deified Which Substantial Powers of Am. Marcellinus as Divination and Prophecy was by their means imparted to men were all said to be subject to that One Sovereign Deity called Themis whom saith he the ancient Theologers seated In Cubili Solio Jovis in the Bed-chamber and Throne of Jupiter as indeed some of the Poets have made her to be the wife of Jupiter and others his Sister And Anaxarchus in Plutarch styles her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter's Assesor though that Philosopher abused the Fable and grosly depraved the meaning of it as if it signified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That whatsoever is done by the Sovereign Power is therefore Just and Right whereas the True Moral tâ—ereof was this That Justice or Righteousness sits in Counsel with God and in his Mind and Will prescribes Laws to Nature and the whole World Themis therefore was another Name of God amongst the 〈◊〉 according to his Universal Confideration besides those befoâ—â— mentioned and when Plato in his Book of Laws would have men to swear by the Names of those Three Gods Jupiter Apollo and Themis these were but so many several Partial Notions of the One Supreme Deity the meaning thereof being no other than this as Pighius observeth Timore Divino Veritate ipsa ac Aequitate sanciri debere Juramenta In Jove enim Summi Numinis Potestatem Falsi ac Perjurii Vindicem in Apolline Veritatis Lumen in Themide Jus Fas atque Licitum esse intelligitur Est enim Themis ipsa Lex aeterna atque Vniversalis Mundo ac Naturae praescripta or according to Cicero Ratio recta Summi Jovis And Ficinus in his Commentary as to the main agreeth herewith So that when the Pagan Theologers affirmed the Numen of Themis to preside over the Spirits of the Elements and all those other Substantial Powers from whom Divination was participated to men their meaning therein was clearly no other that this That there was One Supreme Deity ruling over all the other Gods and that the Divine Mind which prescribeth Laws to Nature and the whole World and conteins all the Fatal Decrees in it according to the Evolution of which things come to pass in the World was the Fountain from whence all Divination proceeded as these Secrets were more or less imparted from thence to those Inferiour Created Spirits The Philosophy of the Pagan Theology amongst the Greeks was plainly no other than this That there is One Vnmade Self-existent Deity the Original of all and that there are many other Substantial Powers or Spirits created by it as the Ministers of its Providence in the World but there was much of Poetry or Poetick Phancy intermingled with this Philosophy as the Flourish to it to make up their Pagan Theology Thus as hath been before declared the Pagans held both One God and Many Gods in different sences One Vnmade Self-existent Deity and Many Generated or Created Gods Onatus the Pythagorean declaring that they who asserted one only God and not Many Vnderstood not what the Dignity and Majesty of the Divine Transcendency consisted in namely in ruling over Gods and Plotinus conceiving that the Supreme God was most of all Glorified not by being Contracted into One but by having Multitudes of Gods Derived from him and Dependent on him and that the Honour done to them redounded unto him Where there are Two Things to be distinguished First that according to the Pagan Theists God was no Solitary Being but that there were Multitudes of Gods or Substantial Powers and Living Understanding Natures Superiour to men which were neither Self-existent nor yet Generated out of Matter but all Generated or Created from One Supreme Secondly that forasmuch as these were all supposed to have some Influence more or less upon the Government of the World and the Affairs of Mankind they were therefore all of them conceived to be the due Objects of mens Religious Worship Adoration and Invocation and accordingly was the Pagan Devotion scattered amongst them all Nor were the Gods of the Oriental Pagans neither meer Dead Statues and Images as some would conclude from the Scripture but Living Vnderstanding Beings Superiour to men though worshipped in Images according to that Reply of the Chaldeans in Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar when he required them to tell his Dream There is none other that can shew this thing before the King Except Those Gods whose Dwelling is not with Flesh that is The Immortal Gods or who are exalted above the Condition of Humane Frailty Though some conceive that these words are to be understood of a Peculiar sort of Gods namely that this was such a thing as could not be done by those Demons and Lower Aerial Gods which frequently converse with men but was reserved to a Higher Rank of Gods who are above humane converse Now as to the Former of these Two Things that God is no Solitary Being but that there are Multitudes of Understanding Beings Superiour to Men the Creatures and Ministers of One Supreme God the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament fully agree with the Pagans herein Thousand Thousands ministred unto him and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him and Ye are come to an innumerable Company of Angels But the Latter of them That Religious Worship and Invocation doth of right belong to these Created Spirits is constantly denied and condemned in these Writings that Being a thing peculiarly reserved to that one God who was the Creator of Heaven and Earth And thus is that Prophecy of Jeremy to be understood expressed in the Chalday Tongue
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Supermundane Soul which was the Third in their Trinity of Gods or Divine Hypostases the Proper and Immediate Opificer of the World And the same in all probability was Plato's opinion also and therefore that Soul which is the only Deity that in his Book of Laws he undertakes to prove was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Supermundane Soul and not the same with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Mundane Soul whose Genesis or Generation is described in his Timaeus the Former of them being a Principle and Eternal the Latter made in Time together with the World though said to be Older than it because in order of Nature before it And thus we see plainly that though some of these Platonists and Pythagoreans either Misunderstood or Depraved the Cabbala of the Trinity so as to make the Third Hypostasis thereof to be the Animated World which themselves acknowledged to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Creature and Thing made yet others of the more Refined of them supposed this Third Hypostasis of their Trinity to be not a Mundane but a Supermundane Soul and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a Creature but the Creator or Opificer of the Whole World And as for the Second Particular proposed it was a gross Absurdity in those Platonists also to make the Second in their Trinity of Gods and Hypostases not to be one God or Hypostasis but a Multitude of Gods and Hypostases as also was that a Monstrous Extravagancy of theirs to suppose the Ideas all of them to be so many distinct Substances and Animals Which besides others Tertullian in his Book De Anima thus imputes to Plato Vult Plato esse quasdam Substantias Invisibiles Incorporeales Supermundiales Divinas Aeternas quas appellat Ideas id est Formas Exempla Causas Naturalium istorum manifestorum subjacentium Corporalibus illas quidem esse Veritates haec autem Imagines earum Plato conceiveth that there are certain Substances Invisible Incorporeal Supermundial Divine and Eternal which he calls Ideas that is Forms Exemplars and Causes of all these Natural and Sensible Things they being the Truths but the other the Images Neither can it be denied but that there are some odd Expressions in Plato sounding that way who therefore may not be justified in this nor I think in some other Conceits of his concerning these Ideas as when he contends that they are not only the Objects of Science but also the Proper and Physical Causes of all things here below as for example that the Ideas of Similitude and Dissimilitude are the Causes of the Likeness and Unlikeness of all things to one another by their Participation of them Nevertheless it cannot be at all doubted but that Plato himself and most of his Followers very well understood that these Ideas were all of them really nothing else but the Noemata or Conceptions of that one Perfect Intellect which was their Second Hypostasis and therefore they could not look upon them in good earnest as so many Distinct Substances Existing severally and apart by themselves out of any Mind however they were guilty of some Extravagant Expressions concernning them Wherefore when they called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essences or Substances as they are called in Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most necessary Essences their true meaning herein was only this to signifie that they were not such Accidental and Evanid things as our Conceptions are they being the Standing Objects of all Science at least if not the Causes also of Existent Things Again when they were by them sometimes called Animals also they intended only to signifie thereby that they were not meer Dead Forms like Pictures drawn upon Paper or Carved Images and Statues And thus Amelius the Philosopher plainly understood that Passage of St. John the Evangelist concerning the Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he pointing the Words otherwise than our Copies now do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which was made in him was Life this Philosopher glossing after this manner upon it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In whom whatsoever was made was Living and Life and True Being Lastly no wonder if from Animals these Ideas forthwith became Gods too to such men as took all occasions possible to multiply Gods in which there was also something of that Scholastick Notion Quicquid est in Deo est Deus Whatsoever is in God is God But the main thing therein was a piece of Paganick Poetry these Pagan Theologers being Generally possessed with that Poetick homour of Personating Things and Deifying them Wherefore though the Ideas were so many Titular Gods to many of the Platonick Pagans yet did Julian himself for Example who made the most of them suppose them all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Coexist with God and Inexist in him that is in the First Mind or Second Hypostasis of their Trinity Lastly whereas Proclus and others of the Platonists intermingle Many Particular Gods with those Three Vniversal Principles or Hypostases of their Trinity as Noes Minds or Intellects Superiour to the First Soul and Henades and Agathotetes Vnities and Goodnesses Superiour to the First Intellect too thereby making those Particular Beings which must needs be Creatures Superiour to those Hypostases that are Vniversal and Infinite and by consequence Creaturizing of them this Hypothesis of theirs I say is altogether Absurd and Irrational also there being no Created Beings Essentially Good and Wise but all by Participation nor any Immovable Natures amongst them whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Essense their Operation but all Mutable and Changeable and probably as Origen and others of the Fathers add Lapsable and Peccable Nulla Natura est quae non recipiat Bonum Malum Exceptâ Dei Naturâ quae Bonorum omnium Fons est Christi Sapientia Sapientiae enim Fons est Sapientia utique Stultitiam recipere non potest Justitia est quae nunquam profecto Injustitiam capiet Verbum est vel Ratio quae uâ—ique Irrationalis effici non potest Sed Lux est Lucem certum est quod Tenebrae non comprehendent Similiter Natura Spiritus Sancti quae sancta est non recipit Pollutionem Naturaliter enim vel Substantiâ—liâ—er Sancta est Siqua autem alia Natura Sancta est ex Assumptione hoc vel Inspiratione Spiritus sancti habet ut sanctisicetur non ex suâ Naturâ hoc possidens sed ut Accidens propter quod decidere potest qoud accidit There is no Nature which is not capable both of Good and Evil excepting only the Nature of God who is the Fountain of all Good and the Wisdom of Christ For he is the Fountain of Wisdom and Wisdom it self never can receive Folly he is also Justice it self which can never admit of Injustice and the Reason and Word it self which can never become Irrational he
able to beget the Father nor the Holy Ghost to Produce either Father or Son and therefore neither of these two Latter is absolutely the Cause of all things but only the First And upon this account was that First of these Three Hypostases who is the Original Fountain of all by Macrobius styled Omnipotentissimus Deus the Most Omnipotent God he therein implying the Second and Third Hypostases Nous and Psyche to be Omnipotent too but not in a perfect Equality with him as within the Deity they are compared together however ad Extra or Outwardly and to Us they being all One are Equally Omnipotent And Plotinus writeth also to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If the First be absolutely Perfect and the First Power then must it needs be the Most Powerful of all Beings other Powers only imitating and partaking thereof And accordingly hereunto would the Platonick Christian further pretend that there are sundry places in the Scripture which do not a little favour some Subordination and Priority both of Order and Dignity in the Persons of the Holy Trinity of which none is more obvious than that of our Saviour Christ My Father is greater than I which to understand of his Humanity only seemeth to be less reasonable because this was no news at all that the Eternal God the Creator of the whole World should be Greater than a Mortal Man born of a woman And thus do divers of the Orthodox Fathers as Athanasius himself St. Basil St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostome with several others of the Latins interpret the same to have been spoken not of the Humanity but the Divinity of our Saviour Christ. Insomuch that Petavius himself expounding the Athanasian Creed writeth in this manner Pater Major Filio ritè catholicè pronuntiatus est à plerisque Veterum Origine Prior sine reprehensione dici solet The Father is in a right Catholick manner affirmed by most of the ancients to be Greater than the Son and he is commonly said also without reprehension to be Before him in respect of Original Whereupon he concludeth the true meaning of that Creed to be this that no Person of the Trinity is Greater or Less than other in respect of the Essence of the Godhead common to them all Quia Vera Deitas in nullo esse aut Minor aut Major potest because the true Godhead can be no where Greater or Less but that notwithstanding there may be some Inequality in them as they are Hic Deus and Haec Persona This God and That Person It is true indeed that many of those ancient Fathers do restrain and limit this Inequality only to the Relation of the Persons one to another as the Father's Begetting and the Son 's being Begotten by the Father and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from both they seeming to affirm that there is otherwise a perfect Equality amongst them Nevertheless several of them do extend this Difference further also as for example St. Hilary a zealous Opposer of the Arians he in his Book of Synods writing thus Siquis Vnum dicens Deum Christum autem Deum ante secula Filium Dei Obsecutum Patri in Creatione omnium non consitetur Anathema sit And again Non exaequamus vel conformamus Filium Patri sed Subjectum intelligimus And Athanasius himself who is commonly accounted the very Rule of Orthodoxality in this Point when he doth so often resemble the Father to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sun or the Original Light and the Son to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Splendour or Brightness of it as likewise doth the Nicene Council and the Scripture it self he seems hereby to imply some Dependence of the Second upon the First and Subordination to it Especially when he declareth that the Three Persons of the Trinity are not to be look'd upon as Three Principles nor to be resembled to Three Suns but to the Sun and its Splendour and its Derivative Light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it appears from the similitude used by us that we do not introduce Three Principles as the Marcionists and Manicheans did we not comparing the Trinity to Three Suns but only to the Sun and its Splendour So that we acknowledge only one Principle As also where he approves of this of Dionysius of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is an Eternal Light which never began and shall never cease to be wherefore thâ—re is an Eternal Splendour also coexistent with him which had no beginning neither but was Alwayes Generated by him shining out before him For if the Son of God be as the Splendour of the Sun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Always Generated then must he needs have an Essential Dependence upon the Father and Subordination to him And this same thing further appears from those other resemblances which the same Dionysius maketh of the Father and the Son approved in like manner also by Athanasius viz. to the Fountain and the River to the Root and the Branch to the Water and the Vapour for so it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appeareth from his Book of the Nicene Synod where he affirmeth the Son to have been begotten of the Essence or Substance of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Splendour of the Light and as the Vapour of the Water adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither the Splendour nor the Vapour is the very Sun and the very Water nor yet is it Aliene from it or a stranger to its nature but they are both Effluxes from the Essence or Substance of them as the Son is an Efflux from the Substance of the Father yet so as that he is no way diminished or lessened thereby Now all these similitudes of the Fountain and the River the Root and the Branch the Water and the Vapour as well as that of the Sun and the Splendour seem plainly to imply some Dependence and Subordination And Dionysius doubtless intended them to that purpose he asserting as Photius informeth us an Inferiority of Power and Glory in the Second as likewise did Origen before him both whose Testimonies notwithstanding Athanasius maketh use of without any censure or reprehension of them Wherefore when Athanasius and the other Orthodox Fathers writing against Arius do so frequently assert the Equality of all the Three Persons this is to be understood in way of opposition to Arius only who made the Son to be Unequal to the Father as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a different Essence from him One being God and the other a Creature they affirming on the contrary that he was Equal to the Father as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Essence with him that is as God and not a Creature Notwithstanding which Equality there might be some Subordination in them as Hic Deus and Haec Persona to use Petavius
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
observed by the way that this Proclus though he were a Superstitious Pagan much addicted to the Multiplying of Gods Subordinate to one Supreme or a Bigotick Polytheist who had a humour of Deifying almost every thing and therefore would have this Nature forsooth to be called a Gooddess too yet does he declare it not to be properly such but Abusively only viz. because it was no Intellectual Thing as he saith the Bodies of the Sun Moon and Stars supposed to be Animated were called Gods too they being the Statues of the Gods This is the meaning of those Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature is a God or Goddess not as having Godship properly belonging to it â—ut as the Divine Bodies are called Gods because they are Statues of the Gods Wherefore we cannot otherwise conclude concerning these our Mechanick Theists who will thus needs derive all Corporeal things from a Dead and Stupid Nature or from the Necessary Motions of Senslâ—ss Matter without the Direction of any Mind or Intention for Ends and Good but that they are indeed Cousin-Germans to Atheists or possessed in a Degree with a kind of Atheistick Enthusiasm or Fanaticism they being so far forth Inspired with a Spirit of Infidelity which is the Spirit of Atheism But these Mechanick Theists are again counterballanced by another sort of Atheists not Mechanical nor Fortuitous namely the Hylozoists who are unquestionably convinced that Opera Naturae sunt Opera Intelligentiae that the Works of Nature are Works of Vnderstanding and that the Original of these Corporeal things was not Dead and Stupid Matter Fortuitously moved upon which account Strato derided Democritus his Rough and Smooth Crooked and Hooky Atoms as meer Dreams and Dotages But these notwithstanding because they would not admit of any other Substance besides Matter suppose Life and Perception Essentially to belong to all Matter as such whereby it hath a Perfect Knowledge of whatsoever it self could Do or Suffer though without Animal-consciousness and can Form it self to the Best advantage sometimes improving it self by Organization to Sense in Brutes and to Reason and Reflexive Understanding in Men. Wherefore according to the Principles of these Hylozoists there is not any need of a God at all that is of one Perfect Mind or Vnderstanding Being presiding over the whole world they concluding accordingly the Opinion of a God to be only a Mistaking of the Inadequate Conception of Matter in General its Life and Energetick Nature taken alone Abstractly for a Complete Substance by it self Nevertheless these Hylozoick Atheists are no way able by this Hypothesis of theirs neither to salve that Phaenomenon of the Regularity and Harmony of the whole Universe because every Part of Matter being according to them a Distinct Percipient by it self whose knowledge extendeth only to its own Concernment and there being no one thing presiding over all the things of the whole World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which all things are Co-ordered together could never have fallen into One such Agreeing and Conspiring Harmony And as for those other Cosmo-Plastick Atheists who suppose the whole World to be as it were but One Huge Plant Tree or Vegetable or to have One Spermatick Plastick and Artificial Nature only Orderly and Methodically disposing the whole but without Sense and Vnderstanding these can no way do the business neither that is salve the forementioned Phaenomenon it being utterly Impossible that there should be any such Artificial and Regular Nature otherwise than as derived from and depending upon a Perfect Mind or Wisdom And thus do we see plainly that no Atheists whatsoever can Salve the Phaenomena of Naâ—ure and this Particularly of the Regular Frame and Harmony of the Vniverse and that true Philosophy or the Knowledge of Causes Necessarily leadeth to a God But besides these Phaenomena of Cogitation or Soul and Mind in Animals Local Motion in Bodies and the Artificial Frame of things for Ends and Vses together with the Conspiring Harmony of the Whole which can no way be Salved without a Deity We might here further add that the Fortuitous that is the Anaximandrian and Democritick Atheists who Universally asserted the Novity of this Mundane System were not able to give any tolerable account neither of the First Beginning of Men and those Greater Animals that are no otherwise begotten than in the way of Generation by the Commixture of Male and Female Aristotle in his Book of the Generation of Animals writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Men and Fourfooted Animals were ever Generated out of the Earth as some affirm it may be probably conceived to have been one of these Two ways either that they were Produced as Worms out of Putrefaction or else Formed in certain Eggs growing out of the Earth And then after a while he concludes again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That if there were any Beginning of the Generation of all Animals it is reasonable to think it to have been one of these Two forementioned wayes It is well known that Aristotle though a Theist elsewhere asserteth the World's Eternity according to which Hypothesis of his there was never any First Male nor Female in any kind of Animals but one begat another Infinitely without any Beginning a thing utterly repugnant to our Humane Faculties that are never able to frame any Conception of such an Infinity of Number and Time and of a Succesive Generation from Eternity But here Aristotle himself seems staggering or Sceptical about it If Men were ever Generated out of the Earth and If there were any Beginning of the Generation of Animals As he doth also in his Topicks propound it for an Instance of a thing Disputable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether the World were Eternal or no he ranking it amongst those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those Great things for which we can give no certain Reason one way nor other Now saith he If the World had a Beginning and If Men were once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Earth-Born then must they have been in all probability either Generated as Worms out of Putrefaction or else out of Eggs he supposing it seems those Eggs to have grown out of the Earth But the Generality of Atheists in Aristotle's time as well as Theists denying this Eternity of the Mundane System as not so agreeable with their Hypothesis because so Constant and Invariable an Order in the World from Eternity hath not such an appearance or semblance of Chance nor can be easily supposed to have been without the Providence of a Perfect Mind presiding over it and Senior to it as Aristotle conceived in Nature though not in Time They therefore in all Probability concluded likewise Men at First to have been Generated One of these Two ways either out of Putrefaction or from Eggs and this by the Fortuitous Motion of Matter without the Providence or Direction of any Deity But after Aristotle Epicurus Phancied those First Men and other Animals to
and no further but the Latter into Terrestial also Now Hierocles positively affirmeth this to have been the True Cabala and Genuine Doctrine of the Ancient Pythagoreans entertained afterwards by Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And This was the Doctrine of the Pythagoreans which Plato afterwards declared he resembling Every both Humane and Divine Soul that is in our Modern Language Every Created Rational Being to a Winged Chariot and a Driver or Charioteer both together meaning by the Chariot an Enlivened Body and by the Charioteer the Incorporeal Soul it self Acting it And now have we given a full Account in what manner the Ancient Asserters of Incorporeal Substance as Vnextended Answered that Objection against the Illocality and Immobility of Particular Finite Spirits Demons or Angels and Humane Souls that these being all Naturally Incorporate however in Themselves and Directly Immoveable yet were capable of being in some sense Moved by Accident together with those Bodies respectively which they are Vitally United to But as for that Pretence That these Finite Spirits or Substances Incorporeal being Vnextended and so having in themselves no Relation to any Place might therefore Actuate and Inform the Whole Corporeal World at once and take Cognizance of all things therein their Reply hereunto was That these being Essentially but Parts of the Vniverse and therefore not Comprehensive of the Whole Finite or Particular and not Universal Beings as the Three Hypostases of the Platonick Trinity are the Sphere of their Activity could not possibly Extend any further than to the Quickning and Enlivening of some certain Parts of Matter and the World allotted to them and thereby of becoming Particular Animals it being Peculiar to the Deity or that Incorporeal Substance which is Infinite to Quicken and Actuate All things But it would be no Impertinent Digression here as to the main Scope of our Present Vndertaking should we briefly compare the forementioned Doctrine and Cabbala of the Ancient Incorporealists the Pythagoreans and Platonists with that of Christianity and consider the Agreement or Disagreement that is betwixt them First therefore here is a plain Agreement of these Best and most Religious Philosophers with Christianity in this That the most Consummate Happiness and Highest Perfection that Humane Nature is capable of consisteth not in a Separate State of Souls strip'd Naked from all Body and having no manner of Commerce with Matter as some High-flown Persons in all Ages have been apt to Conceit For such amongst the Philosophers and Platonists too was Plotinus Vnevennes and Vnsafeness of whose Temper may sufficiently appear from hence That as he conceived Humane Souls might possibly ascend to so high a Pitch as quite to shake off Commerce with all Body so did he in the other hand again Imagine that they might also Descend and Sink down so low as to Animate not only the Bodies of Bruits but even of Trees and Plants too Two Inconsistent Paradoxes the Latter whereof is a most Prodigious Extravagancy which yet Empedocles though otherwise a Great Wit seems to have been guilty of also from those Verses of his in Athenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And amongst the Jews the famous Maymonides was also of this Perswasion it being a Known Aphorism of his in his Great Work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That in the World to Come or State of Consummate Happiness there shall be nothing at all of Body but Pure Incorporeity Upon which Account being accused as a Denyer of the Resurrection an Article as well of the Jewish as of the Christian Faith he wrote that Book intituled Iggereth Teman purposely to purge himself and to reconcile those Two Assertions together which he doth after such a manner as that there should be indeed a Resurrection at the First Coming of the Jewish Messias of some certain Persons to live here a while upon the Earth Eat and Drink Marry and be given in Marriage and then dy again after which in the World to come they should for ever continue Pure Souls Ununited to any Body In which it may be well suspected that the Design Maymonides drove at was against Christianity which notwithstanding as to this Particular hath the Concurrent Suffrages of the best Philosophers That the most Genuine and Perfect state of the Humane Soul which in its own Nature is immortal is to continue for ever not without but with a Body And yet our High-flown Enthusiasts generally however calling themselves Christians are such great Spiritualists and so much for the Inward Resurrection which we deny not to be a Scripture-Notion also As in that of S. Paul If ye be Risen with Christ c. And again If by any means I might attain to the Resurrection of the Dead as that they quite Allegorize away together with other Parts of Christianity the Outward Resurrection of the Body and indeed will scarcely acknowledge any Future Immortality or Life to come after Death their Spirituality thus ending in Sadducism and Infidelity if not at length in Down-right Atheism and Sensuality But besides this there is yet a further Correspondence of Christianity with the forementioned Philosopbick Cabbala in that the Former also supposes the Highest Perfection of our Humane Souls not to consist in being Eternally Conjoyned with such Gross Bodies as these we now have Unchanged and Unaltered For as the Pythagoreans and Platonists have always Complained of these Terrestrial Bodies as Prisons or Living Sepulchres of the Soul so does Christianity seem to run much upon the same strain in these Scripture-Expressions In this We Groan Earnestly desiring to be Clothed upon with our House which is from Heaven and again We that are in this Tabernacle do Groan being burdened not for that we would be Vncloathed that is strip'd quite Naked of all Body but so cloathed upon that Mortality might be swallowed up of Life and lastly Our selves also which have the First Fruits of the Spirit Groan within our selves waiting for the Adoption Sonship or Inheritance namely the Redemption of our Bodies That is the Freedom of them from all those Evils and Maladies of theirs which we herely oppressed under Wherefore we cannot think that the same Heavy Load and Luggage which the Souls of good men being here burdened with do so much groan to be delivered from shall at the General Resurrection be laid upon them again and bound fast to them to all Eternity For of such a Resurrection as this Plotinus though perhaps mistaking it for the True Christian Resurrection might have some cause to affirm that it would be but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Resurrection to another Sleep the Soul seeming not to be Thoroughly Awake here but as it were Soporated with the Dull Steams and Opiatick Vapours of this gross Body For thus the Authour of the Book of Wisdom The Corruptible Body presseth down the Soul and the Earthly Tabernacle weigheth down the Mind that museth upon many things But the same will further appear from that
where he calls his Ideas Animals Nor was Apuleius Singular herein Julian in his Book against the Christians going the very same way and no otherwise understood by S. Cyril than as to make the Invisible Gods worshipped by the Pagans to be the Divine Ideas A Phancy of the same Julian who opposed the Incarnation of the Eternal Word that Aesculapius was first of all the Idea of the Medicinal Art Generated by the Supreme God in the Intelligible World which afterwards by the Vivifick Influence of the Sun was Incarnated and appeared in Humane Form about Epidaurus And that this Pagan Doctrine Older than Christianity proved out of Philo writing of a Sun and Moon Intelligible as well as Sensible Religiously worshipped by the Pagans That is the Ideas of the Archetypal World And thus were these Ideas of the Divine Intellect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intelligible Gods to Plotinus also Page 496 c. 501 Wherefore Julian Apuleius and those others who thus made all the Pagan Invisible Gods to be nothing else but the Divine Ideas the Patterns of Things in the Archetypal World supposed them not to be so many Independent Deities nor Really Distinct Substances Separate from one another but onely so many Partiall Considerations of One God Julian before affirming them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As to have been Generated out of him so also to Coexist with him and Inexist in him Page 501 502 That the Pagans appointed some Particular God or Goddess by Name to preside over Every thing there Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing at all without a God to them appeareth from that Catalogue of their Ignoble or Petty Gods Collected by S. Austine out of Varro Now it is Incredible that they should think all these to be so many Single Substantiall Spirits of each Sex Really Existing apart in the World they must therefore needs take them to be so many Partiall Considerations of the Deity either in the way of the more High-flown Platonists as his Ideas Exemplarily and Vertually containing all things or else in that more Common and easâ—y way of the Generality as so many Several Denominations of him according to the Several Manifestations of his Power and Providence or as the Pagans in Eusebius declares themselves those Several Vertues and Powers of the Supreme God themselves Personated and Deifyed Which yet because they were not executed without the Subservient Ministery of Created Spirits Angels or Demons appointed to preside over such things therefore might these also Collectively taken be included under them Page 502 503 But for the fuller clearing of this Point that the Pagan Polytheism was in great part Nothing but the Polyonymy of one God Two Things here to be taken notice of First that the Pagan Theology Vniversally Supposed God to be Diffused thorough all to Permeate and Pervade all and Intimately to Act all Thus Horus Apollo of the Egyptians Thus among the Greeks Diogenes the Cynick Aristotle the Italick and Stoicall Philosophers Thus the Indian Brachmans before Strabo Thus also the Latin Poets and Seneca Quintilian Apuleius and Servius besides others Page 503 504 That Anaxagoras and Plato also though neither of them Confounded God with the World but affirmed him to be Unmingled with any thing yet Concluded him in like manner to Permeate and Pervade all things Plato 's Etymology of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as taken for a Name of God to this purpose in his Cratylus Where a Fragment of Heraclitus and his Description of God agreeably hereunto a most Subtle and Swift Substance that Permeates and Passes through every thing by which all things are made But Plato disclaiming this Corporeity of the Deity will neither have it Fire nor Heat but a Perfect Mind that Passes through all things Unmixedly Page 505 Wherefore no wonder if the Pagans supposing God to be Diffused thorough all things called him in the Several Parts of the World and Things of Nature by several Names as in the Earth Ceres in the Sea Neptune c. This accompt of the Pagan Polytheism given by Paulus Orosius That whilst they believed God to be in Many things they indiscreetly made Many Gods of Him Page 505 506 Further to be observed That many of the Pagan Theologers seemed to go yet a Strain higher they supposing God not onely to Pervade all things but also to Be himself all things That the Ancient Egyptian Theology ran so high Evident from the Saitick Inscription A strong Tang hereof in Aeschylus as also in Lucan Neither was this proper to those who held God to be the Soul of the World but the Language also of those other more Refined Philosophers Xenophanes Parmenides c. they affirming God to be One and All. With which agreeth the Authour of the Asclepian Dialogue that God is Vnus omnia One all things and that before things were made he did then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hide them or Occultly contain them all within himself In like manner Orpheus Page 506 507 This not onely a further Ground of the Polyonymy of One God according to the Various Manifestations of himself in the World but also of another Strange Phaenomenon in the Pagan Theology their Personating the Inanimate Parts of the World and Natures of things and bestowing the Names of Gods and Goddesses upon them Thus Moschopulus before cited and Arnobius This Plutarch thinks to have been done at first Metonymically onely the Effects of the Gods being called Gods as the Books of Plato Plato And thus far not disliked by him But himself complaineth that aftewards it was carried on further by Superstitious Religionists and not without great Impiety Nevertheless that Inanimate Substances and the Natures of things were formerly Deifyed by the Ancient Pagans otherwise than Metonymically proved from Cicero Philo and Plato For they supposing God to Pervade all things and to be All things did therefore look upon every thing as Sacred or Divine and Theologize the Parts of the World and Natures of Things Titularly making them Gods and Goddesses But especially such things as wherein Humane Utility was most concerned and which had most of Wonder in them Page 507 510 This properly the Physiological Theology of the Pagans their Personating and Deifying the Natures of things and Inanimate Substances That the Ancient Poetick Fables of the Gods were many of them in their first and true meaning thus Physiologically Allegorical and not meer Herology affirmed against Eusebius Zeno Cleanthes and Chrysippus Famous for thus Allegorizing the Fables of the Gods Chrysippus his Allegorizing an Obscene Picture of Jupiter and Juno in Samos Plato though no Friend to these Poetick Fables yet confesses some of them to have contained Allegories in them the same doth also Dionysius Halicarnassaeus and Cicero likewise who affirmeth this Personating and Deifying the Natures of things to have filled the World with Superstition Page 510 512 Against Eusebius again That the whole Theology of the Pagans consisted not in thus Deifying the Natures of things and
Assert an Infinite Progress in the Causes of Motion according to Aristotle to assign no Cause thereof at all Epicurus though an Exploder of Qualities forced here to fly to an Occult Quality of Gravity Which as Absurd in Infinite Space and without any Centre of Rest so indeed nothing but to make his own Ignorance and He Knows not Why to be a Cause The Motion of Body from the Activity of something Incorporeal Though Motion taken for Translation be a Mode of Matter yet as it is taken for the Vis Movens a Mode or Energy of Something that is Incorporeal and Self-Active The Motion of the whole Corporeal Universe Originally from the Deity Thus the Ignorance of the Cause of Motion another Ground of Atheism Page 667 669 Thirdly The Atheists also Ignorant of the Cause of that Grand Phaenomenon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Regular and Artificial Frame of the Mundane System and of the Bodies of Animals together with the Harmony of all They who boast they can give Causes of all things without a God able to give no Cause of this but onely that it Happened by Chance so to be This either to make the Absence of a Cause a Cause Chance being but the Absence of an Intending Cause or their Own very Ignorance of the Cause and They Know not Why to be a Cause or to make One Contrary the Cause of Another Confusion of Order and Harmony Chance of Art and Skill or Lastly to deny it to have any Cause at all since they deny an Intending Cause Page 669 But here the Atheists make several Pretenâ—es for this their Ignorance First That the World is not so Well Made but that it might have been much Better and many Flaws to be found therein whereas a God or Perfect Being would have Bungled in Nothing but have made all things after the Best manner But this a Twelfth Athâ—istick Argumentation and the Confutation thereof to be expected afterward Reasons why some Modern Theists give Atheists so much advantage here as to acknowledge Things be Ill Made whilst the Ancient Pagan Theists stood their Ground and generously maintained that Mind being the Maker of all things and not Blind Fortune or Chance nor Arbitrary Will and Irrational Humane Omnipotent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is Absolutely the Bâ—st in order to the Good of the Whole so far as the Necessity of things would admit the Measure and Rule of Nature and Providence Page 669 670 Again the Atomick and Epicurean Atheists Pretend That though many things serve for Uses yet it does not therefore folâ—ow that they were made Intentionally for those Uses because things that Happen by Chance may have Uses Consequent Thus Lucretius and the old Atheistick Philosophers before Aristotle of the Parts of the Bodies of Animals and all other things The Answer That when things consist of many Parts all Artificially Proportioned together with much Curiosity as for example the Eye no man who considers the Anatomy thereof and its whole Structure can reasonably conclude that it Happened so to be made and the Use of Seeing Followed but that it was made Intentionally for the Use of Seeing But to maintain that not onely Eyes Happened to be so made and the Use of Seeing Followed but also Ears and a Mouth and Feet and Hands and all the other parts Organical and Similar without any of which the Whole would be Inept or Vseless all their several Uses Vn-Intended following Gross Insensibility and Stupidity Galen of the Use of Parts Page 671 672 Democritus his Dotages Countenanced also by Cartesius His Book of Meteors first written with design to Salve all those Phaenomena without a God but Vnsuccessfully Nevertheless we acknowledge That God and Nature doe all things in the most Frugal and Compendious way and that the Mechanick Powers are taken in so far as they will serviceably comply with the Intellectual Platform But Nature not Mechanical and Fortuitous onely but also Vital and Artificial the Archeus of the whole World ibid. Again Atheists further Pretend That though it may well seem strange that Matter Fortuitously Moved should at the very First fall into such a Regularity and Harmony as is now in the World yet not at all strange that Atoms moving from all Eternity and making all manner of Combinations and Contexturâ—s and trying all Experiments should after innumerable other Inept and Discongruous Forms at length fall into such a System as This. They say therefore That the Earth at first brought forth divers Monstrous and Irregular Shapes of Animals some wanting Feet some Hands some without a Mouth c. to which the Ancients added Centaurs Scylla's and Chimaera's mixtly Boviform and Hominiform Animals Though Epicurus ashamed to own these would seem to exclude them but without Reason But because we have now no such Irregular Shapes Produced out of the Earth they say that the Reason is because none could Continue and Propagate their kind by Generation but onely such as Happened to be fitly made Thus Epicurus and the Atheists before Aristotle They also adde hereunto their Infinite Worlds amongst which they Pretend not one of a Thousand or of Ten thousand hath so much Regularity in it as this of ours Lastly they Presage likewise that this World of ours shall not always continue such but after a while fall into Confusion and Disorder again and then may we have Centaurs Scylla's and Chimaera's as before Page 672 674 Nevertheless because this Universal and Constant Regularity of things for so many Ages together is so Puzzling they would perswade us that the Sensless Atoms Playing and Toying up and down from Eternity without any Care or Thought were at length Taught by the Necessity of things and driven to a kind of Trade or Habit of Artificialness and Methodicalness Page 674 675 To all which Atheistick Pretences Replied First That this an Idle Dream or Impudent Forgery That there was once an Inept Mundane System and in this World of ours all manner of Irregular Shapes of Animals not onely because no Tradition of any such thing but also because no Reason possibly to be given why such should not be Produced out of the Earth still though they could not Continue long That also Another Atheistick Dream That in this World of ours all will quickly fall into Confusion and Nonsense again And as their Infinite Worlds an Impossibility so their Assertion of the Irregularity of the supposed other Worlds well enough Answered by a Contrary Assertion That were every Planet a Habitable Earth and every Fixed Star a Sun having all more or fewer such Habitable Planets moving round about them and none of them Desert or Un-inhabited there would not be found so much as one Ridiculous or Inept System amongst them all the Divine Act being Infinite Page 675 Again That the Fortuitous Motions of Sensless Atoms should in length of Time grow Artificial and contract a Habit or Trade of Acting as Regularly as if directed
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
yet it doth not Answer all the Contents Prefixed to it Here therefore must we again confess our selves Surprized who when we wrote those Contents did not suspect in the least but that we should have Satisfied them all within a lesser Compass And our Design then was besides Answering the Objection against the Naturality of the Idea of God from the Pagan Polytheism we having then so fit an Occasion to give such a further Account of the Idolatry and Religion of the Gentiles as might prepare our way for a Defence of Christianity to be subjoyned in the Close it being not onely agreeable to the Sense of Ancient Doctors but also expresly declared in the Scripture That One Design of Christianity was to abolish and extirpate the Pagan Polytheism and Idolatry And our Reasons for this Intended Defence of Christianity were First Because we had Observed that some Professed Opposers of Atheism had either incurred a Suspicion or at least suffered under the Imputation of being meer Theists or Natural Religionists onely and no hearty Believers of Christianity or Friends to Revealed Religion From which either Suspicion or Imputation therefore we thought it Justice to free our selves we having so Unshaken a Belief and firm Assurance of the Truth of the whole Christian Doctrine But Secondly and Principally Because we had further Observed it to have been the Method of our Modern Atheists to make their First Assault against Christianity as thinking that to be the most Vulnerable and that it would be an easy Step for them from thence to Demolish all Religion and Theism However since the Satisfying the Former Part of those Contents had already taken up so much Room that the Pursuit of the Remainder would have quite Excluded our principally Intended Confutation of all the Atheistick Grounds the forementioned Objection being now sufficiently Answered there was a necessity that we should there break off and leave the further Account of the Pagan Idolatry and Religion together with our Defence of Christianity to some other more convenient Opportunity And now we shall Exhibit to the Reader 's view a Brief and General Synopsis of the whole following VVork together with some Particular Reflexions upon several Parts thereof either for his better Information concerning them or for their Vindication some of which therefore will be of greater Vse after the Book has been read then before The First Chapter is an Account of the Atomick Physiology as made the Foundation of the Democritick Fate VVhere the Reader is to understand that this Democritick Fate which is One of the Three False Hypotheses of the Intellectual System there Mentioned is the very Self-same thing with the Atomick Atheism the onely Form of Atheism that hath publickly appeared upon the Stage as an Entire Philosophick System or hath indeed been much taken notice of in the VVorld for these Two Thousand years past For Though it be true That Epicurus who was also an Atomick Atheist as is afterwards declared having in all probability therefore a Mind to Innovate Something that he might not seem to have borrowed all from Democritus did by violence introduce Liberty of Will into his Hypothesis for the Salving whereof he ridiculously devized That his Third Motion of Atoms called by Lucretius Exiguum Clinamen Principiorum Yet was this as Cicero long since observed a most Heterogeneous Patch or Assumentum of his and altogether as Contradictious to the Tenour of his own Principles as it was to the Doctrine of Democritus himself There can be nothing more Absurd then for an Atheist to assert Liberty of Will but it is most of all Absurd for an Atomick One. And therefore our Modern Atheists do here plainly disclaim Epicurus though otherwise so much Admired by them and declare open War against this Liberty of Will they Apprehending that it would unavoidably Introduce Incorporeal Substance as also well Knowing that Necessity on the contrary Effectually overthrows all Religion it taking away Guilt and Blame Punishments and Rewards to which might be added also Prayers and Devotions And as there was a necessity for us here to give some Account of that Ancient Atomick Physiology with which Atheism now became thus Blended and Complicated so do we in this First Chapter chiefly insist upon Two things concerning it First That it was no Invention of Democritus nor Leucippus but of much greater Antiquity not onely from that Tradition transmitted by Posidonius the Stoick That it derived its Original from one Moschus a Phoenician who lived before the Trojan Wars which plainly makes it to have been Mosaicall but also from Aristotle's Affirmation That the greater part of the Ancient Philosophers entertained this Hypothesis and further because it is certain that divers of the Italicks and particularly Empedocles before Democritus Physiologized Atomically which is the Reason he was so much applauded by Lucretius Besides which it is more then a Presumption that Anaxagoras his Homoeomery or Similar Atomology was but a Degeneration from the True and Genuine Atomology of the Ancient Italicks that was an Anomoeomery or Doctrine of Dissimilar and Unqualified Atoms Wherefore all that is True concerning Democritus and Leucippus is onely this That these men were indeed the First Atheizers of this Ancient Atomick Physiology or the Inventors and Broachers of the Atomick Atheism Which is Laërtius his True meaning though it be not commonly understood when he recordeth of them that they were the First who made Unqualified Atoms the Principles of all things in the Universe without exception that is not onely of Inanimate Bodies as the other Ancient Religious Atomists the Italicks before had done but also of Soul and Mind And whereas we conceive this Atomick Physiology as to the Essentialls thereof to be Vnquestionably True viz. That the onely Principles of Bodies are Magnitude Figure Site Motion and Rest and that the Qualities and Forms of Inanimate Bodies are Really nothing but several Combinations of these Causing several Phancies in us Which excellent Discovery therefore so long agoe made is a Notable Instance of the Wit and Sagacity of the Ancients So do we in the Next place make it manifest that this Atomick Physiology rightly understood is so far from being either the Mother or Nurse of Atheism or any ways Favourable thereunto as is Vulgarly supposed that it is indeed the most directly Opposite to it of any and the greatest Defence against the same For First we have Discovered That the Principle upon which this Atomology is Founded and from whence it Sprung was no other then this Nothing out of Nothing in the True Sense thereof or That Nothing can be Caused by Nothing from whence it was concluded that in Natural Generations there was no new Real Entity produced which was not before the Genuine Consequence whereof was Two-fold That the Qualities and Forms of Inanimate Bodies are no Entities Really distinct from the Magnitude Figure Site and Motion of Parts and That Souls are Substances Incorporeal not Generated out of
shall no further pursue it in this place Thus afterwards again in the same Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It follows from Empedocles his Principles that God must needs be the Most Vnwise of all he alone being ignorant of that out of which all other things are compounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Contention because himself is nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnity and Friendship whereas Mortal Animals may know or conceive all things they being compounded of all Which same Passage we have again also in his Metaphysicks from whence it was before cited to another purpose To these might be added another place out of his Book of Generation and Corruption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God hath filled up the Whole or Vniverse and constantly supplies the same having made a Continual Successive Generation Lastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes plainly used by Aristotle also not for The Divinity in general or Any thing that is Divine but for that One Supreme Deity the Governour of the whole World Thus in that Passage of his Rhetorick to Alexander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is that wherein we Men differ from other Animals having recieved the greatest honour from God that though they be endued with Appetite and Anger and other Passions as well as we yet we alone are furnished with Speech and Reason Over and besides which Aristotle in his Metaphysicks as hath been already observed professedly opposeth that Imaginary Opinion of Many Independent Principles of the Universe that is of Many Vnmade Self-existent Deities he confuting the same from the Phaenomena because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are plainly Coordered to One the whole world conspiring into One agreeing Harmony whereas if there were many Principles or Independent Deities the System of the World must needs have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incoherent and Inconspiring like an Ill-agreeing Drama botch'd up of Many Impertinent Intersertions Whereupon Aristotle concludes after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Things will not be ill administred which was then it seems a kind of Proverbial Speech and according to Homer the Government of Many is not Good nor could the affairs of the World be evenly carried on under it wherefore there is One Prince or Monarch over all From which Passage of Aristotle's it is evident that though he asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Multiplicity of Gods in the Vulgar Sence as hath been already declared yet he absolutely denied 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Polyarchy or Mundane Aristocracy that is a Multiplicity of First Principles and Independent Deities Wherefore though Aristotle doted much upon that Whimsey of his of as many Intelligibles or Eternal and Immovable Minds now commonly called Intelligences as there are Movable Spheres of all kinds in the Heavens which he sticks not also sometimes to call Principles yet must he of necessity be interpreted to have derived all these from One Supreme Universal Deity which as Simplicius expresseth it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Principle of Principles and which comprehends and contains those Inferiour Deities under it after the same manner as the Primum Mobile or Highest Sphere contains all the Lesser Spheres within it Because otherwise there would not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Prince or Monarch over the whole but the Government of the World would be a Polychoerany or Aristocracy of Gods concluded to be an Ill Government Moreover as Plotinus represents Aristotle's sence it is not conceivable that so many Independent Principles should thus constantly Conspire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one Work that Agreeable Symphony and Harmony of the Whole Heaven As there could not be any reason neither why there should be just so many of these Intelligences as there are Spheres and no more and it is absurd to suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the First Principles of the Vniverse happened by Chance Now this Highest Principle as it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Immovable Essence is by Aristotle in the First place supposed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Principle of Motion in the Vniverse or at least of that Chiefest Motion of the Primum Mobile or Highest Sphere which according to the Astronomy of those times seems to have been the Sphere of Fixed Stars by whose Rapid Circumgyration all the other Spheres and Heavens were imagined to be carried round from East to West And accordingly the Supreme Deity is by Aristotle called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First Immovable Mover or the Mover of the Primum Mobile and whole Heaven Which First Mover being concluded by him to be but One he doth from thence infer the Singularity of the Heaven or World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is One Numerically First Immovable Mover and no more and therefore there is but One Movable neither that is but One Heaven or World In which Doctrine of Aristotles there seems to be a Great Difference betwixt his Philosophy and that of Plato's in that Plato makes the Principle of Motion in the Heavens and Whole World to be a Self-moving Soul but Aristotle supposeth it to be an Immovable Mind or Intellect Nevertheless according to Aristotle's Explication of himself the Difference betwixt them is not great if any at all Aristotle's Immovable Mover being understood by him not to move the Heavens Efficiently but only Objectively and Finally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being Loved Which Conceit of his Proclus upon Plato's Timaeus perstringeth after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some of the ancients converting the World to Mind or Intellect and making it move only by Love of that first Desirable acknowledged nothing at all to descend down from Mind or God upon the World but equalized the same with other Amiable things amongst Sensibles that have nothing Generative in their Nature Where Proclus seems to suppose Aristotle to have attributed to God no Efficiency at all upon the World the Contrary whereunto shall be evidently proved afterwards In the mean time it is certain that Aristotle besides his Immovable Mover of the Heavens which moveth only Finally or as Being Loved must needs suppose another Immediate Mover of them or Efficient Cause of that Motion which could be nothing but A Soul that enamoured with this Supreme Mind did as it were in Imitation of it continually Turn round the Heavens Which seems to be nothing but Plato's Doctrine disguised that Philosopher affirming likewise the Circular Motions of the Heavens caused Efficiently by a Soul of the World in his Timaeus to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Motion that is most agreeable to that of Mind or Wisdom And again in his Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which of all Corporeal Motions only resembles the Circuit of Intellect Which Platonick Conceit found entertainment with Boetius who writing of the Soul of the World represents it thus Quae cum Secta Duos motum