wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and

wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and

cch.kcl.ac.uk
from cch.kcl.ac.uk More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

TTEVilVIIQ Plato took Notice only Be ok I.VIII. PofilUy it may be thought alfo, that Thto in his Sophifr intendsthis hylozoick atheifm, where he deciaies it as the opinion of many, ' t>»(Bu!7iu TravV- ypmxv^ p-s^o tiv^ aiTiKJ u^iroij-cLT,;:^ x, avcu ciVM.c^c (p-jHcr.^' That naturegenerates dl things from a certain fpoutraeous pinciple, ivitbout anyrecfon and tmderjlanding . But here the word aJTo;^aT?i; may be as well rendrcdfortuitous, as Ipontaneous ; however, there is no nectfiity, that diisIhould be underftooJ of an artificial or methodical unknowing nature. It istrue indeed, that Plato himfelf feems to acknowledge a certain plaftick or methodicalnature in the univerfe, fubordinate to the D;;ity, or that perfv:dtmind, v/hich is the fupreme governor of all things ; as may be gath.^redfrom thele words ot his, f-a (p^criv pjVa XiJyv y.xi c-Cv >.oyu xc.ivij --1 -kx^j-^ S-.y.-MITIJI.UV iha.t nature does rationally (cr orderly) together idth rcafon andvi'riid.^govern the whole univerfe. Where he fuppofes a certain regular natuie to bea partial and fubordinate caufe of things under the divine intcilccl. And it isvery probable, that Arijlotle derived that whole doftrine of his concerning areo^ular and artificial nature, which adls for ends, from the Platonick fchool.But as for any fuch form of atheifm, as flaould fuppofc a plaftick or regular,but fenfelefs nature either in the whole v/orld, or the feveral parts ot matterby themfelves, to be the higheft principle of all things, we do not conceive,that there is any intimation of it to be found any where in Plato. Forin his De Legibtts, where he profefiedly difputes againlt atheifm, he dates thedoftrine of it after this manner, rx. p.b fxr/i-x xxt yJ-xXirc a.-:r(cy:

Chap. III. of the Fortuitous Atheifms, i nWherefore we conclude, that Tlato took no notice of any other form ofathcifm, as then fet on foot, than fuch as derives all things from a mere fortuitousprinciple, from nature aid chance, that i?, the unguided motion ofmatter, without any plaftick artiSicialnefs or methodicalnefs, either in thewhole univerfe, or the parts of if. But becaufe this kind of atheifm, whichderives all things from a mere fortuitous nature, had been managed two mannerof ways, by Democritus in the way of atoms, and by ^inaximander andothers in the way of forms and qualities ;(of Vi^hich we are to fpeak in thenext place;) therefore the atheifm, which P/a/o oppofes, was either the Democritickor the Anaximandrian atheifm j or elfe (which is moll probable) bothof them together.IX. It is hardly imaginable, that there fliould be no philoiophick Atheifls inthe world before Democritus and Leucippus. Plato ' long fince concluded, that/-. SSS. Ed.there have been Atheilts, more or Icfs, in every age, when he befpeaks his ^''•young Atheift after this manner ; OJ c-j ,uov^ iSi o-oi i^iAoi zr^-aroi kx\ w^ajoKt^i'Jt!)!) oorav tirjoi S'jM!/ Etr^sTf, yuvcvTM it a,n urAEisf n eAktIkj raJriii; tw voVou evou-TEf The • full fenfe whereof feems to be this -, Neither you., my [on, nor yourfriends [Democritus., Leucippus a.r\d Protagoras) are tbefirjl., who have entertainedthis opinion concerning the gods., hit there have been always fome moreor lefs Jick of this atheifiick difeafe. Wherefore we fliall novv make a diligentfearch and enquiry, to fee if we can find any otlicr philofophers, who atheizedbefore Democritus and Leucippus., as alio what form of atheifm they entertained./iriflotle in his Metaphyficks, fpeaking of the quaternio of caufes, affirms,that many of thofe, who firft philolophized, affigned only a material caufe ofthe whole mundane fyflem, without either intending or efficient caufe. Thereafon whereof he intimates to have been this, becaufe they afferted matter tobe the only fubftance ; and that whatfoever elfe was in the world, befides thefubftance or bulk of matter, were all nothing elfe but Tri^n, different paffionsand affetflions, accidents and qualities of matter, that were all generated out ofif, and corruptible again into it; the fubftance of matter always remainingthe fame, neither generated nor corrupted, but from eternity unmade ; Arifio'.le'%words are * thefe : tmv uT^utmu (pjAoo-o^rtrjcvTcou o\ irXCr-Oi rixg e'h uA>if iiSn* Ltk I.

TTEVilVIIQ Plato took Notice only Be ok I.VIII. P<strong>of</strong>ilUy it may be thought alfo, that Thto in h<strong>is</strong> Sophifr intendsth<strong>is</strong> hylozoick a<strong>the</strong>ifm, where he deciaies it as <strong>the</strong> opinion <strong>of</strong> many, ' t>»(Bu!7iu TravV- ypmxv^ p-s^o tiv^ aiTiKJ u^iroij-cLT,;:^ x, avcu ciVM.c^c (p-jHcr.^' That naturegenerates dl things from a certain fpoutraeous pinciple, ivitbout anyrecfon <strong>and</strong> tmderjl<strong>and</strong>ing . But here <strong>the</strong> word aJTo;^aT?i; may be as well rendrcdfortuitous, as Ipontaneous ; however, <strong>the</strong>re <strong>is</strong> no nectfiity, that di<strong>is</strong>Ihould be underftooJ <strong>of</strong> an artificial or methodical unknowing nature. It <strong>is</strong>true indeed, that Plato himfelf feems to acknowledge a certain plaftick or methodicalnature in <strong>the</strong> univerfe, fubordinate to <strong>the</strong> D;;ity, or that perfv:dtmind, v/hich <strong>is</strong> <strong>the</strong> fupreme governor <strong>of</strong> <strong>all</strong> things ; as may be gath.^redfrom <strong>the</strong>le words ot h<strong>is</strong>, f-a (p^criv pjVa XiJyv y.xi c-Cv >.oyu xc.ivij --1 -kx^j-^ S-.y.-MITIJI.UV iha.t nature does ration<strong>all</strong>y (cr orderly) toge<strong>the</strong>r idth rcafon <strong>and</strong>vi'riid.^govern <strong>the</strong> whole univerfe. Where he fupp<strong>of</strong>es a certain regular natuie to bea partial <strong>and</strong> fubordinate caufe <strong>of</strong> things under <strong>the</strong> divine intcilccl. And it <strong>is</strong>very probable, that Arijlotle derived that whole d<strong>of</strong>trine <strong>of</strong> h<strong>is</strong> concerning areo^ular <strong>and</strong> artificial nature, which adls for ends, from <strong>the</strong> Platonick fchool.But as for any fuch form <strong>of</strong> a<strong>the</strong>ifm, as flaould fupp<strong>of</strong>c a plaftick or regular,but fenfelefs nature ei<strong>the</strong>r in <strong>the</strong> whole v/orld, or <strong>the</strong> feveral parts ot matterby <strong>the</strong>mfelves, to be <strong>the</strong> higheft principle <strong>of</strong> <strong>all</strong> things, we do not conceive,that <strong>the</strong>re <strong>is</strong> any intimation <strong>of</strong> it to be found any where in Plato. Forin h<strong>is</strong> De Legibtts, where he pr<strong>of</strong>efiedly difputes againlt a<strong>the</strong>ifm, he dates <strong>the</strong>d<strong>of</strong>trine <strong>of</strong> it after th<strong>is</strong> manner, rx. p.b fxr/i-x xxt yJ-xXirc a.-:r(cy:

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!