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

Chap. III. Supreme Dei iy^ no Atheijls. 123Fenia and Porus, this being not a divine but dsemoniack thing (as the philofopherthere declares,) no God, but a d-emon only, or of a middle nature.For it is nothing but (piAoxaAio:, or the love of pulchritude as fuch,which, though rightly ufed, may perhaps wing and infpire the mind to nobleand generous attempts, and beget a fcornful difdain in it of mean,dirty, and fordid things ;yet it is capable of being abufed alfo, and thenit will ftrike downward into brutifhnefs and ftnfuality. But at bcft it isan affeiStion belonging only to imperfedl and parturient beings ; and.therefore could not be the firft principle of all things. Wherefore wefee no very great reafon, but that in a reftified and qualified fenfe thismay pafs for true theology ; that Love is the fupreme Deity and originalof all things ; namely, if by it be meant eternal, felf-originated, intelleftualLove, or cflential and ilibftantial goodnefs, that having an infiniteoverflowing fulnefs and fecundity difpenfes itfelf uninvidiouOy, accordingto the befh wifdom, fweetly governs all, without any force or violence (allthings being naturally fubjed to its authority, and readily obeying its laws)and reconciles the whole world into harmony. For the Scripture telling us,that God is love, feems to warrant thus much to us, that love in fome rightlyqualified fenfe is God.XIX. But we are to omit the fabulous age, and to defccnd to the philofophical,to enquire there, who they were among the profefled philofophers,who atheized in that manner before defcribed. It is true indeed, thatAriftotle in other places accufes Demoa-itus and Leucippus of the very famething, that is, of affigning only a material caufe of the univerfe, and givingnoaccount of the original of motion •, but yet it is certain, that thefe were notthe perfons intended by him here -, thofc, which he fpeaks of, being tive?Twu wfWTwu (piAocro:pnTaKTui/, fome of the firft and moft ancient philofophers of all.Moreover, it appears by the defcription of them, that they were fuch as didnot philofophize in the way of atoms, but refolved all things whatfoever inthe univerfe into uA»i and -rri-^-n rxg i'A-^f, matter, and the pafiions or aifections,qualities and forms of matter ; fo that they were not atomical, buthylopathian philofophers. Thefe two, the old Materialifts and the Democriticks,did both alike derive all things from dead and ftupid matter, fortuitouflymoved ; and the difference between them was only this, that theDemocriticks managed this bufinefs in the way of atoms, the other in thatmore vulgar way of qualities and forms: fo that indeed this is really butone and the fume atheiilick hypothefis, in two feveral fchemes. And as oneof them is called the atomick atheifm, lb the other, for diftindion's fake,may be called the hylopathian.XX. Now Ariftotle tells_ us plainly, that thefe hylopathian Atheifts ofhis were all the firft philofophers of the lonick order and fuccelTion, beforeAnaxagoras. Whereof T'/^^.W being the head, he is confentaneoufly thereuntoby Ariftotle made to be ''^/jfCyo^ t?; ToiaiJx^if (piKoTopixg, the prince andleader of this kind of atheiftical philofophy, he deriving all things whatfoever,as Homer had done before him, from water, and acknowledging no otherprinciple but the fluid matter.Not-