expressed by Sanchuniathon in his Description of the Phoenician Theology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Turbid and Dark Chaos and the Second is intimated in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spirit was affected with love towards its own Principles perhaps expressing the Force of the Hebrew word Merachepheth and both of them implyng an Understanding Prolifical Goodness Forming and Hatching the Corporeal World into this perfection or else a Plastick Power subordinate to it Zeno who was also originally a Phoenician tells us that Hesiod's Chaos was Water and that the Material Heaven as well as Earth was made out of Water according to the Judgment of the best Interpeters is the genuine sence of Scripture 2 Pet. 3.5 by which water some perhaps would understand a Chaos of Atoms confusedly moved But whether Thales were acquainted with the Atomical Physiology or no it is plain that he asserted besides the Soul's Immortality a Deity distinct from the Corporeal World We pass to Pythagoras whom we have proved already to have been an Atomist and it is well known also that he was a professed Incorporealist That he asserted the Immortality of the Soul and consequently its Immateriality is evident from his Doctrine of Pre-existence and Transmigration And that he likewise held an Incorporeal Deity distinct from the World is a thing not questioned by any But if there were any need of proving it because there are no Monuments of his Extant perhaps it might be done from hence because he was the chief Propagator of that Doctrine amongst the Greeks concerning Three Hypostases in the Deity For that Plato and his Followers held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostases in the Deity that were the first Principles of all things is a thing very well known to all Though we do not affirm that these Platonick Hypostases are exactly the same with those in the Christian Trinity Now Plato himself sufficiently intimates this not to have been his own Invention and Plotinus tells us that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Ancient Opinion before Plato's time which had been delivered down by some of the Pythagoricks Wherefore I conceive this must needs be one of those Pythagorick Monstrosities which Xenophon covertly taxes Plato for entertaining and mingling with the Socratical Philosophy as if he had thereby corrupted the Purity and Simplicity of it Though a Corporealist may pretend to be a Theist yet I never heard that any of them did ever assert a Trinity respectively to the Deity unless it were such an one as I think not fit here to mention XXIII That Parmenides who was likewise a Pythagorean acknowledged a Deity distinct from the Corporeal World is evident from Plato And Plotinus tells us also that he was one of them that asserted the Triad of Divine Hypostases Moreover whereas there was a great Controversie amongst the Ancient Philosophers before Plato's time between such as held all things to Flow as namely Heraclitus and Cratylus and others who asserted that some things did Stand and that there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a certain Immutable Nature to wit an Eternal Mind together with Eternal and Immutable Truths amongst which were Parmenides and Melissus the former of these were all Corporealists this being the very Reason why they made all things to Flow because they supposed all to be Body though these were not therefore all of them Atheists But the latter were all both Incorporealists and Theists for whosoever holds Incorporeal Substance must needs according to Reason also assert a Deity And although we did not before paticularly mention Parmenides amongst the Atomical Philosophers yet we conceive it to be manifest from hence that he was one of that Tribe because he was an eminent Asserter of that Principle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That no Real Entity is either Made or Destroyed Generated or Corrupted Which we shall afterwards plainly shew to be the grand Fundamental Principle of the Atomical Philosophy XXIV But whereas we did evidently prove before that Empedocles was an Atomical Physiologer it may notwithstanding with some Colour of Probability be doubted whether he were not an Atheist or at least a Corporealist because Aristotle accuses him of these following things First of making Knowledge to be Sense which is indeed a plain sign of a Corporealist and therefore in the next place also of compounding the Soul out of the four Elements making it to understand every corporeal thing by something of the same within it self as Fire by Fire and Earth by Earth and Lastly of attributing much to Fortune and affirming that divers of the Parts of Animals were made such by chance and that there were at first certain Mongrel Animals fortuitously produced that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as had something of the shape of an Oxe together with the Face of a Man though they could not long continue which seems to give just Cause of Suspicion that Empedocles Atheized in the same manner that Democritus did To the first of these we reply that some others who had also read Empedocles's Poems were of a different Judgment from Aristotle as to that conceiving Empedocles not to make Sense but Reason the Criterion of Truth Thus Empiricus informs us Others say that according to Empedocles the Criterion of Truth is not Sense but Right Reason and also that Right Reason is of two sorts the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Humane Of which the Divine is inexpressible but the Humane declarable And there might be several Passages cited out of those Fragments of Empedocles his Poems yet left to confirm this but we shall produce only this one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this Sence Suspend thy Assent to the Corporeal Senses and consider every thing clearly with thy Mind or Reason And as to the Second Crimination Aristotle has much weakened his own Testimony here by accusing Plato also of the very same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato compounds the Soul out of the four Elements because Like is known by Like and things are from their Principles Wherefore it is probable that Empedocles might be no more guilty of this fault of making the Soul Corporeal and to consist of Earth Water Air and Fire than Plato was who in all mens Judgments was as free from it as Aristotle himself if not more For Empedocles did in the same manner as Pythagoras before him and Plato after him hold the Transmigration of Souls and consequently both their Future Immortality and Preexistence and therefore must needs assert their Incorporeity Plutarch rightly declaring this to have been his Opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That as well those who are yet Vnborn as those that are Dead have a Being He also asserted Humane Souls to be here in a Lapsed State 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wanderers Strangers and Fugitives from God declaring as Plotinus tells us that it was a Divine Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Souls sinning should
not merely Fortuitous but Regular Orderly and Methodical the Stoical excluding all Chance and Fortune universally because they subject all things to One Plastick Nature ruling over the whole Universe but the Stratonical doing it in part only because they derive things from a Mixture of Chance and Plastick Nature both together And thus we see that there is a Double Notion of Nature amongst Atheists as well as Theists which we cannot better express than in the words of Balbus the Stoick personated by Cicero Alii Naturam censent esse Vim quandam sine Ratione cientem motus in corporibus necessarios Alii autem Vim participem Ordinis tanquam Viâ progredientem Cujus Solertiam nulla Ars nulla Manus nemo Opifex consequi potest imitando Seminis enim Vim esse tantam ut id quanquam perexiguum nactumque sit Materiam quâ ali augerique possit ita fingat efficiat in suo quidque genere partim ut per stirpes alantur suas partim ut movere etiam possint ex se similia sui generare Some by Nature mean a certain Force without Reason and Order exciting Necessary Motions in Bodies but others understand by it such a Force as participating of Order proceeds as it were Methodically Whose exquisiteness no Art no Hand no Opificer can reach to by Imitation For the Force of Seed is such that though the Bulk of it be very small yet if it get convenient Matter for its nourishment and increase it so Forms and Frames things in their several kinds as that they can partly through their Stocks and Trunks be nourished and partly Move themselves also and Generate their like And again Sunt qui omnia Naturae Nomine appellent ut Epicurus Sed nos cum dicimus Naturâ constare administrarÃque Mundum non ita dicimus ut Glebam aut Fragmentum Lapidis aut aliquid ejusmodi nulla cohaerendi Natura Sed ut Arborem ut Animalia in quibus nulla Temeritas sed Ordo apparet Artis quaedam Similitudo There are some who call all things by the name of Nature as Epicurus But we when we say that the World is administred by Nature do not mean such a Nature as is in Clods of Earth and Pieces of Stone but such as is in a Tree or Animal in whose Constitution there is no Temerity but Order and Similitude of Art Now according to these Two different Notions of Nature the Four forementioned Forms of Atheism may be again Dichotomized after this manner into such as derive all things from a mere Fortuitous and Temerarious Nature devoid of all Order and Methodicalness and such as deduce the Original of things from a certain Orderly Regular and Artificial though Sensless Nature in Matter The former of which are the Anaximandrian and Democritick Atheisms the latter the Stoical and Stratonical It hath been already observed that those Atheisms that derive all things from a mere Fortutious Principle as also suppose every thing besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bare Substance of Matter or Extended Bulk to be Generated and Corrupted though they asserted the Eternity of Matter yet they could not agreeably to their own Hypothesis maintain the Eternity and Incorruptibility of the World And accordingly hereunto both the Anaximandrian and Democritick Atheists did conclude the World to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as was at first Made and should be again Corrupted And upon this accompt Lucretius concerns himself highly herein to prove both the Novity of the World and also its Future Dissolution and Extinction that Totum Nativum Mortali Corpore constat But instead of the Worlds Eternity these Two sorts of Atheists introduced another Paradox namely an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Infinity of Worlds and that not only Successive in that space which this World of ours is conceived now to occupy in respect of the Infinity of Past and Future Time but also a Contemporary Infinity of Coexistent Worlds at all times throughout Endless and Unbounded Space However it is certain that some Persons Atheistically inclined have been always apt to run out another way and to suppose that the Frame of things and System of the World ever was from Eternity and ever will be to Eternity such as now it is dispensed by a certain Orderly and Regular but yet Sensless and Vnknowing Nature And it is Prophesied in Scripture that such Atheists as these should especially abound in these latter days of ours There shall come in the last days 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Atheistical Scoffers walking after their own Lusts and saying Where is the promise of his Coming For since the Fathers fell asâ—eep all things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation Which latter words are spoken only according to the received Hypothesis of the Jews the meaning of these Atheists being quite otherwise that there was neither Creation nor Beginning of the World but that things had continued such as now they are from all Eternity As appears also from what the Apostle there adds by way of Confutation That they were wilfully Ignorant of this that by the word of God the Heavens were of old and the Earth standing out of the Water and in the Water and that as the World that then was overflowing with Water perished so the Heavens Earth which now are by the same word are kept in store and reserved unto Fire against the day of Judgment Perdition of Vngodly men And it is evident that some of these Atheists at this very day march in the garb of Enthusiastical Religionists acknowledging no more a God than a Christ without them and Allegorizing the day of Judgment and future Conflagration into a kind of seemingly Mystical but really Atheistical Non-sence These if they did Philosophize would resolve themselves into one or other of those Two Hypotheses before mentioned either that of One Plastick Orderly and Methodical but Sensless Nature ruling over the whole Universe or else that of the Life of Matter making one or other of these two Natures to be their only God or Numen It being sufficiently agreeable to the Principles of both these Atheistick Hypotheses and no others to maintain the Worlds both Antè and Post-Eternity yet so as that the latter of them namely the Hylozoists admitting a certain Mixture of Chance together with the Life of Matter would suppose that though the main Strokes of things might be preserved the same and some kind of constant Regularity always kept up in the World yet that the whole Mundane System did not in all respects continue the same from Eternity to Eternity without any Variation But as Strabo tells us that Strato Physicus maintained the Euxine Sea at first to have had no Out-let by Byzantium into the Mediterranean but that by the continual running in of Rivers into it causing it to overflow there was in length of time a passage opened by the Propontis and Hellespont As also
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
Polytheists and Theogonists also and asserting besides the One Supreme Vnmade Deity other Inferiour Mundane Gods Generated together with the World the Chief whereof were the Animated Stars they must needs according to the Tenor of that Tradition suppose them as to their Corporeal Parts at least to have been Juniors to Night and Chaos and the Off-spring of them because they were all made out of an Antecedent Dark Chaos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Mus Araneus being blind is said to have been deified by the Egyptians because they thought that Darkness was older than Light And the Case was the same concerning their Demons likewise they being conceived to have their Corporeal Vehicula also for which Cause as Porphyrius from Numenius writeth the ancient Egyptians pictured them in Ships or Boats floating upon the Water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Egyptians therefore represented all their Demons as not standing upon firm Land but in Ships upon the Water But as for the Incorporeal Part or Souls of those Inferiour Gods though these Divine Theogonists could not derive their Original from Chaos or Matter but rather from that other Principle called Love as being Divinely Created and so having God for their Father yet might they notwithstanding in another sence phancy Night to have been their Mother too inasmuch as they were all made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from an antecedent Non-existence or Nothing brought forth into Being For which Cause there seems to have been in Orpheus a Dialogue betwixt the Maker of the World and Night For that this ancient Cabala which derived the Cosmogonia from Chaos and Love was at first Religious and not Atheistical and Love understood in it not to be the Off-spring of Chaos may be concluded from hence because this Love as well as Chaos was of a Mosaical Extraction also and plainly derived from that Spirit of God which is said in the Scripture To have moved upon the waters that is upon the Chaos whether by this Spirit be to be meant God Himself as acting immediatly upon the Matter or some other Active Principle derived from God and not from Matter as a Mundane Soul or Plastick Nature From whence also it came that as Porphyrius testifieth the ancient Pagans thought the Water to be Divinely inspired 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They thought that Souls attended upon the Water or resorted thereunto as being Divinely Inspired as Numenius writeth adding the Prophet also therefore to have said That the Spirit of God moved upon the Water And that this Cabala was thus understood by some of the ancient Pagan Cosmogonists themselves appears plainly not only from Simmias Rhodius and Parmenides but also from these following Verses of Orpheus or whoever was the Writer of those Argonauticks undoubtedly ancient where Chaos and Love are thus brought in together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this Sence We will first sing a pleasant and delightful Song concerning the ancient Chaos how Heaven Earth and Seas were framed out of it as also concerning that Much-wise and Sagacious Love The Oldest of all and Self-perfect which actively produced all these things separating one thing from another Where this Love is not only called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Much-counsel or Sagaciousness which implies it to have been a Substantial and Intellectual Thing but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Oldest of all and therefore Senior to Chaos as likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-perfect or Self-originated From whence it is manifest that according to the Orphick Tradition this Love which the Cosmogonia was derived from was no other than the Eternal Vnmade Deity or an Active Principle depending on it which produced this whole Orderly World and all the Generated Gods in it as to their Material part out of Chaos and Night Accordingly as Aristotle determines in his Metaphysicks not only in the place before-cited but also afterward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Others besides the Material Cause of the World assign an Efficient or Cause of Motion namely whosoever make either Mind and Intellect or Love a Principle Wherefore we conclude that that other Atheistick Cabala or Aristophanick Tradition before-mentioned which accordingly as Aristotle also elsewhere declareth concerning it did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Generate all things whatsoever even the Gods themselves universally out of Night and Chaos making Love it self likewise to have been produced from an Egg of the Night I say that this was nothing else but a mere Depravation of the ancient Mosaick Cabala as also an Absolutely Impossible Hypothesis it deriving all things whatsoever in the Universe besides the Bare Substance of Sensless Matter in another Sence then that before-mentioned out of Non-entity or Nothing as shall be also farther manifested afterwards We have now represented the Sence and generally received Doctrine of the ancient Pagan Theologers that there was indeed a Multiplicity of Gods but yet so that One of them only was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ingenerate or Vnmade by whom all the other Gods together with the World were Made so as to have had a Novity of Being or a Temporary Beginning of their Existence Plato and the Pythagoreans here only differing from the rest in this that though they acknowledged the World and all the Mundane Gods to have been Generated together in Time yet they supposed certain other Intelligible and Supramundane Gods also which however produced from one Original Deity were nevertheless Eternal or without Beginning But now we must acknowledge that there were amongst the Pagan Theists some of a different perswasion from the rest who therefore did did not admit of any Theogonia in the sence before declared that is any Temporary Generation of Gods because they acknowledged no Cosmogonia no Temporary Production of the World but concluded it to have been from Eternity That Aristotle was one of these is sufficiently known whose Inferior Gods therefore the Sun Moon and Stars must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ingenerate in this sence so as to have had no Temporary Production because the Whole World to him was such And if that Philosopher be to be believed himself was the very First at least of all the Greeks who asserted this Ingenerateness or Eternity of the World he affirming that all before him did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Generate or Make the World that is attribute a Temporary Production to it and consequently to all those Gods also which were a Part thereof Notwithstanding which the Writer de Placitis Philosophorum and Stobaeus impute this Dogma of the Worlds Eternity to certain others of the Greek Philosophers before Aristotle besides Ocellus Lucanus who is also acknowledged by Philo to have been an assertor thereof And indeed Epicharmus though a Theist seems plainly to have been of this Perswasion that the World was Vnmade
Consentaneously whereunto they did both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theologize or Deifie all things looking upon every thing as having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something Supernatural or a kind of Divinity in it and also bestow Several Names upon God according to all the several Parts of the World and Things of Nature calling him in the Starry Heaven and Aether Jupiter in the Air Juno in the Winds Aeolus in the Sea Neptune in the Earth and Subterraneous Parts Pluto in Learning Knowledge and Invention Minerva and the Muses in War Mars in Pleasure Venus in Corn Ceres in Wine Bacchus and the like However it is unquestionably Evident from hence that Orpheus with his Followers that is the Generality of the Greekish Pagans acknowledged One Vniversal and All-comprehending Deity One that was All and consequently could not admit of Many Self-existent and Independent Deities XVIII Having treated largely concerning the Two most Eminent Polytheists amongst the ancient Pagans Zoroaster and Orpheus and clearly proved that they asserted One Supreme Deity we shall in the next place observe that the Egyptians themselves also notwithstanding their Multifarious Polytheism and Idolatry had an acknowledgment amongst them of One Supreme and Vniversal Numen There hath been some Controversie amongst Learned Men Whether Polytheism and Idolatry had their first rise from the Egyptians or the Chaldeans because the Pagan Writers for the most part give the Precedency here to the Egyptians Lucian himself who was by Birth a Syrian and a diligent enquirer into the Antiquities of his own Country affirming that the Syrians and Assyrians received their Religion and Gods first from the Egyptians and before Lucian Herodotus the Father of History reporting likewise that the Egyptians were the First that erected Temples and Statues to the Gods But whether the Egyptians or Chaldeans were the First Polytheists and Idolaters there is is no question to be made but that the Greeks and Europeans generally derived their Polytheism and Idolatry from the Egyptians Herodotus affirms in oneplace that the Greeks received their Twelve Gods from thence and in another that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Almost all the Names of the Gods came first out of Egypt into Greece In what sence this might be true of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self though the word be Originally Greekish shall be declared afterwards But it is probable that Herodotus had here a further meaning that the very Names of many of the Greekish Gods were originally Egyptian In order to the confirmation of which we shall here propound a Conjecture concerning One of them viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called otherwise by the Greeks Pallas and by the Latins Minerva For first the Greek Etymologies of this word seem to be all of them either Trifling and Frivolous or Violent and Forced Plato in his Cratylus having observed that according to the ancient Allegorical Interpreters of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind or Vnderstanding Personated and Deified conceived that the first imposers of that Name intending to signifie thereby Divine Wisdom called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Vnderstanding of God or the Knowledge of Divine things as if the Word had been at first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thence afterward transformed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But being not fully satisfied himself with this Etymology he afterwards attempts another deriving the Word from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Knowledge concerning Manners or Practical Knowledge as if it had been at first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from thence changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Others of the Greeks have deduced this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is the Property of Wisdom to collect all into One supposing that it was at first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Others would fetch it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Alpha Privative because Minerva or Wisdom though she be a Goddess yet hath nothing of Feminine Imperfection in her Others again would etymologize it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Vertue or Wisdom is of such a Noble and Generous temper as that it scorns to subject it self to any base and unworthy servitude Lastly others would derive it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirming it to have been at first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From all which uncertainty of the Greeks concerning the Etymon of this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from the Frivolousness or Forcedness of these Conjectures we may rather conclude that it was not originally Greekish but Exotical and probably according to Herodotus Egyptian Wherefore let us try whether or no we can find any Egyptian Word from whence this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be deriâ—ed Plato in his Timaeus making mention of Sais a City in Egypt where Solon sometime sojourned tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the President or Tutelar God of that City was called in the Egyptian Language Neith but in the Greek as the same Egyptians affirm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now why might not this very Egyptian word Neith by an easie inversion have been at first turned into Thien or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men commonly pronouncing Exotick words ill-favouredly and then by additional Alpha's at the beginning and end transformed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This seems much more probable than either Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any other of those Greek Etymologies before-mentioned And as the Greeks thus derived the Names of many of their Gods from the Egyptians so do the Latins seem to have done the like from this one Instance of the word Neptune which though Varro would deduce à nubendo as if it had been Nuptunus because the Sea covers and hides the Land and Scaliger with others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Washing this being the chief use of Water yet as the learned Bochart hath observed it may with greater probability be derived from the Egyptian word Nephthus Plutarch telling us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Egyptians called the Maritime parts of Land or such as border upon the Sea Nephthus Which Conjecture may be further confirmed from what the same Plutarch elsewhere write that as Isis was the Wife of Osiris so the Wife of Typhon was called Nephthus From whence one might collect that as Isis was taken sometimes for the Earth or the Goddess presiding over it so Nephthus was the Goddess of the Sea To which may be further added out of the same Writer that Nephthus was sometimes called by the Egyptians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Venus probably because Venus is said to have risen out of the Sea But whatever may be thought of these Etymological conjectures certain it is that no Nation in the world was ever accompted by the Pagans more Devout Religious and Superstitious than the Egyptians and consequently none was more Polytheistical and Idolatrous Isocrates in his Praise of Busiris gives them a
rough and smooth hookey and crooked Atoms he judging these things to be nothing but the mere Dreams and Dotages of Democritus not teaching but wishing Here we see that Strato denied the World to be made by a Deity or perfect Understanding Nature as well as Democritus and yet that he dissented from Democritus notwithstanding holding another kind of Nature as the Original of things than he did who gave no account of any Active Principle and Cause of Motion nor of the Regularity that is in Things Democritus his Nature was nothing but the Fortuitous Motion of Matter but Strato's Nature was an Inward Plastick Life in the several Parts of Matter whereby they could Artificially frame themselves to the best advantage according to their several Capabilities without any Conscious or Reflexive Knowledg Quicquid aut sit aut fiat says the same Authour Naturalibus fieri aut factum esse docet ponderibus motibus Strato teaches whatsoever is or is made to be made by certain inward Natural Forces and Activities VI. Furthermore it is to be observed that though Strato thus attributed a certain kind of Life to Matter yet he did by no means allow of any one Common Life whether Sentient and Rational or Plastick and Spermatick only as Ruling over the whole mass of Matter and Corporeal Universe which is a thing in part affirmed by Plutarch and may in part be gathered from these words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strato affirmeth that the World is no Animal or God but that what is Natural in every thing follows something Fortuitous antecedent Chance first beginning and Nature acting consequently thereupon The full sence whereof seems to be this that though Strato did not derive the Original of all Mundane things from mere Fortuitous Mechanism as Democritus before him had done but supposed a Life and Natural Perception in the Matter that was directive of it yet not acknowledging any one Common Life whether Animal or Plastick as governing and swaying the whole but only supposing the several Parts of Matter to have so many several Plastick Lives of their own he must needs attribute something to Fortune and make the Mundane System to depend upon a certain Mixture of Chance and Plastick or Orderly Nature both together and consequently must be an Hylozoist Thus we see that these are two Schemes of Atheism very different from one another that which fetches the Original of all things from the mere Fortuitous and Unguided Motion of Matter without any Vital or Directive Principle and that which derives it from a certain Mixture of Chance and the Life of Matter both together it supposing a Plastick Life not in the whole Universe as one thing but in all the several Parts of Matter by themselves the first of which is the Atomick and Democritick Atheism the second the Hylozoick and Stratonick VII It may perhaps be suspected by some that the famous Hippocrates who lived long before Strato was an Assertour of the Hylozoick Atheism because of such Passages in him as these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature is Vnlearned or Vntaught but it learneth from it self what things it ought to do And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature findeth out ways to it self not by Ratiocination But there is nothing more affirmed here concerning Nature by Hippocrates than what might be affirmed likewise of the Aristotelick and Platonick Nature which is supposed to act for Ends though without Consultation and Ratiocination And I must confess it seems to me no way mis-becoming of a Theist to acknowledge such a Nature or Principle in the Universe as may act according to Rule and Method for the Sake of Ends and in order to the Best though it self do not understand the reason of what it doth this being still supposed to act dependently upon a higher Intellectual Principle and to have been first set a work and employed by it it being otherwise Non-sence But to assert any such Plastick Nature as is Independent upon any higher Intellectual Principle and so it self the first and highest Principle of Activity in the Universe this indeed must needs be either that Hylozoick Atheism already spoken of or else another different Form of Atheism which shall afterwards be described But though Hippocrates were a Corporealist yet we conceive he ought not to lie under the suspicion of either of those two Atheisms forasmuch as himself plainly asserts a higher Intellectual Principle than such a Plastick Nature in the Universe namely an Heraclitick Corporeal God or Vnderstanding Fire Immortal pervading the whole World in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems to me that that which is called Heat or Fire is Immortal and Omniscient and that it sees hears and knows all things not only such as are present but also future Wherefore we conclude that Hippocrates was neither an Hylozoick nor Democritick Atheist but an Heraclitick Corporeal Theist VIII Possibly it may be thought also that Plato in his Sophist intends this Hylozoick Atheism where he declares it as the Opinion of many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Nature generates all Things from a certain Spontaneous Principle without any Reason and Vnderstanding But here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be as well rendred Fortuitous as Spontaneous however there is no necessity that this should be understood of an Artificial or Methodical Unknowing Nature It is true indeed that Plato himself seems to acknowledge a certain Plastick or Methodical Nature in the Universe Subordinate to the Deity or that perfect Mind which is the supreme Governour of all things as may be gathered from these words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Nature does rationally or orderly together with Reason and Mind govern the whole Vniverse Where he supposes a certain Regular Nature to be a Partial and Subordinate Cause of things under the Divine Intellect And it is very probable that Aristotle derived that whole Doctrine of his concerning a Regular and Artificial Nature which acts for Ends from the Platonick School But as for any such Form of Atheism as should suppose a Plastick or Regular but Sensless Nature either in the whole World or the several parts of Matter by themselves to be the highest Principle of all things we do not conceive that there is any Intimation of it to be found any where in Plato For in his De Legibus where he professedly disputes against Atheism he states the Doctrine of it after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Nature and Chance produced all the first greatest and most excellent things but that the smaller things were produced by Humane Art The plain meaning whereof is this that the First Original of things and the frame of the whole Universe proceeded from a mere Fortuitous Nature or the Motion of Matter unguided by any Art or Method And thus it is further explained in the following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c.
That the first Elements Fire water Air and Earth were all made by Nature and Chance without any Art or Method and then that the bodies of the Sun Moon and Stars and the whole Heavens were afterward made out of those Elements as devoid of all manner of Life and only fortuitously moved and mingled together and lastly that the whole Mundane System together with the orderly Seasons of the year as also Plants Animals and Men did arise after the same manner from the mere Fortuitous Motion of sensless and stupid Matter In the very same manner does Plato state this Controversie again betwixt Theists and Atheists in his Philebus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether shall we say O Protarchus that this whole Vniverse is dispensed ond ordered by a mere Irrational Temerarious and Fortuitous Principle and so as it happens or contrariwise as our fore-fathers have instructed us that Mind and a certain Wonderful Wisdom did at first frame and does still govern all things Wherefore we conclude that Plato took no notice of any other Form of Atheism as then set on foot than such as derives all things from a mere Fortuitous Principle from Nature and Chance that is the unguided Motion of Matter without any Plastick Artificialness or Methodicalness either in the whole Universe or the parts of it But because this kind of Atheism which derives all things from a mere Fortuitous Nature had been managed two manner of ways by Democritus in the way of Atoms and by Anaximander and others in the way of Forms and Qualities of which we are to speak in the next place therefore the Atheism which Plato opposes was either the Democritick or the Anaximandrian Atheism or else which is most probable both of them together IX It is hardly imaginable that there should be no Philosophick Atheists in the world before Democritus and Leucippus Plato long since concluded that there have been Atheists more or less in every Age when he bespeaks his young Atheist after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The full sence whereof seems to be this Neither you my Son nor your friends Democritus Leucippus and Protagoras are the first who have entertained this Opinion concerning the Gods but there have been always some more or less sick of this Atheistick Disease Wherefore we shall now make a diligent search and enquiry to see if we can find any other Philosophers who Atheized before Democritus and Leucippus as also what Form of Atheism they entertained Aristotle in his Metaphysicks speaking of the Quaternio of Causes affirms that many of those who first Philosophized assigned only a Material Cause of the whole Mundane System without either Intending or Efficient Cause The reason whereof he intimates to have been this because they asserted Matter to be the only Substance and that whatsoever else was in the World besides the substance or bulk of Matter were all nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 different Passions and Affections Accidents and Qualities of Matter that were all Generated out of it and Corruptible again into it the Substance of Matter always remaining the same neither Generated nor Corrupted but from Eternity unmade Aristotle's words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Most of those who first philosophized took notice of no other Principle of things in the Vniverse than what is to be referred to the Material Cause for that out of which all things are and out of which they are first made and into which they are all at last corrupted and resolved the Substance always remaining the same and being changed only in its Passions and Qualities This they concluded to be the first Original and Principle of all things X. But the meaning of these old Material Philosophers will be better understood by those Exceptions which Aristotle makes against them which are Two First that because they acknowledged no other Substance besides Matter that might be an Active Principle in the Universe it was not possible for them to give any account of the Original of Motion and Action 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though all Generation be made never so much out of something as the Matter yet the question still is by what means this cometh to pass and what is the Active Cause which produceth it because the Subject-matter cannot change it self As for example neither Timber nor Brass is the cause that either of them are changed for Timber alone does not make a Bed nor Brass a Statue but there must be something else as the Cause of the Change and to enquire after this is to enquire after another Principle besides Matter which we would call that from whence Motion springs In which words Aristotle intimates that these old Material Philosopers shuffled in Motion and Action into the World unaccountably or without a Cause forasmuch as they acknowledged no other Principle of Things besides Passive Matter which could never move change or alter it self XI And Aristotle's second Exception against these old Material Philosophers is this that since there could be no Intending Causality in Sensless and Stupid Matter which they made to be the only Principle of all things they were not able to assign 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Cause of Well and Fit and so could give no account of the Regular and Orderly Frame of this Mundane System 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That things partly are so well in the World and partly are made so well cannot be imputed either to Earth or Water or any other sensless Body much less is it reasonable to attribute so noble and Excellent an Effect as this to mere Chance or Fortune Where Aristotle again intimates that as these Material Philosophers shuffled in Motion into the world without a Cause so likewise they must needs suppose this Motion to be altogether Fortuitous and Unguided and thereby in a manner make Fortune which is nothing but the absence or defect of an Intending Cause to supply the room both of the Active and Intending Cause that is Efficient and Final Whereupon Aristotle subjoyns a Commendation of Anaxagoras as the first of the Ionick Philosophers who introduced Mind or Intellect for a Principle in the Universe that in this respect he alone seemed to be sober and in his wits comparatively with those others that went before him who talked so idly and Atheistically For Anaxagoras his Principle was such saith Aristotle as was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at once a cause of Motion and also of Well and Fit of all the Regularity Aptitude Pulchritude and Order that is in the whole Universe And thus it seems Anaxagoras himself had determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anaxagoras saith that Mind is the only Cause of Right and Well this being proper to Mind to aim at Ends and Good and to order one thing Fitly for the sake of another Whence it was that Anaxagoras concluded Good also as well as Mind to have been a Principle of the Universe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉