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

130 Tljeijls and Athe'ifis mi ftalien for orie another. ' B o o k I.fed, and condemned, tor athcillical impiety, as denying all gods, though nophty^Nl.ino- fouls, and confcqucndy to be gods. So likewife Socrates was both accii-thing was pretended to be proved againft him, but only this, that he did -itfiV Si-OKO-xiiti fJ-ri MOjJ-i^iiV, «,- n -n-i'/.K; ioy.iC,u, irigx os ixiuoviz xmvoc iKTpionv^ teach that tbofewere not true gods, which the city worjhipt, and in the room thereof introduce otherneiv gods. And iailly, the Chriftians in the primitive times, for the famercafon, were vulgarly traduced for Atheifts by the Pagans, as Jufiin Martyrdeclares in his a' )ology ', a-S'toi ;;£KAr|«£>j-a,, /^ jj^oXoyts fj-iv tuv roiiruiv vouii^outvui*S-suv a3-««i enjzi- fFe are called Atheifts ; and we confefs our/elves fucb, in refpe£iof thofegods which they worfhip, but not of the true Gcd. And as the vulgarhave unjuftJy condemned many Theifts for Atheifts, fo have they alfo acquittedmany rank Atheifts from the guilt of that crime, merely becaufe theyexternally complied with them, in their religious worfhip, and forms of fpeech.Neither is it only the vulgar, that have been impofed upon herein, but alio thegenerality of learned men, who have been commonly fo fuperficial in this bufinefs,as that they have hardly taken notice of above three or four Atheifts, thatever were in former times, as namely, Diagoras, Theodoras, Euenierus, andProtagoras; whereas Democritus and yhaximander were as rank Atheifts asas any of them all, tiiough they had the v/it to carry thcmfelves externallywith more cautioufnefs. And indeed it was really one and the feif-fame formof atheifm, v.hich both thefe entertained, they deriving all things alike, fromdead and ftupid matter fortuitoudy moved, the diftcrcnce between them beingonly this, that they managed it two difterent ways •, A'/iaximander in theway of qualities and forms, which is the more vulgar and obvious kind of a-theifm ; but Democritus in the way of atoms and hgurts, whicli feems to bea more learned kind of atheifm.And though we do not doubt at all, but that Plato, in his tenth de Legihus,where he attacks atheifm, did intend the confutation as well of the Democritickas the Anaximandrian atheifm ; yet whether it were, becaufe hehad no mind to take any notice at all of Democritus, who is not fo muchas once mentioned by him any where, or eife becaufe he was not fo perfe6tlyacquainted with that atomick way of phyfiologizing, certain it is, that hethere delbribes the atheiftick hypothefis more according to the Anaximandrianthan the Demccritick form. For when he rcprefents the atheiftick generationof heaven and earth, and all things in them, as refulting trom the fortuitouscommixture of hot and cold, hard and foft, moift and dry corpufculathis is clearly more agreeable with the Anaximandrian generation of the world,by the lecretion of inexiftent contrarieties in the matter, than the Democri-'tick Cofmopcria, by the fortuitous concourfe of atoms, devoid of all mannerof qualities and forms.Some indeed fecm to call that fcheme of atheifm, that deduces all thingsfrom matter, in the way of qualities and forms, by the name ofPeripatetickor Ariftotelick atheifm ; we fuppofe for this reafon, becaufe Ariftotlephyfiologized in that way of forms and qualities, educing them outof the power of the matter. But fince Arijlotle himfclf cannot be juftly« P. 5(5. Oper.taeccd