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

1 74. 7^^ Atheifilcli J^tomology Book I.quantities and bulks, together with it; thev contend-ing, that they are butinadequate conceptions of body, as the only fubllance i and conlequentlyconcluding, that the vulgarly received notion of God is nothing elfc butliich an inadequate conception of the matter of the %vhole corporeal univerfe,miftaken for a complete and entire fubftance by itfelf, that is fuppofed to bethe caufe of all things: which fond dream or dotage of theirs will befurther confuted in due place. But it is now time to put a period to thisJong (though ncceffliryj digreffion, concerning the plaftick life of nature, oran areificial, orderly and methodicaj nature,XXXVIII. Vlalo gives an account, why he judged it neccffiry in thofetimes, publickly to propofe that atheiftick hypothefis, in order to a confutation,as alfo to produce rational arguments for the proof of a E>eity, afterDi Leg. A'i. this manner ; Ei |U)i xauaTaou/voi wa-j 01 racuTOi "kiyoi h tok '^cco'iv^ uf £7r©^ ilTre'iVy[P. 666.^atkeijlick do^rines been fubliekly divulged, and made knovon in a manner to all.,it would not have been needful to have confuted them., nor by reafons to prove aDeity ; but now it is neceffary. And we conceive, that the fame necefTity atthis time will juftify our prefent undertaking likewife ; fince thefe a-theiftick doftrines have been as boldly vented, and publickly aflerted in thislatter age of ours, as ever they could be in Plato's time ; when the feverityof the Athenian government mufl needs be a great check to fuch defigns,Socrates having been put to death upon a mere falle and groundlefs accufationof atheifm, and Protagoras, (who doubtlefs was a real Atheirt) havingefcaped the Hime puniihment no otherv/ife than by flight, his books beingnotwithftanding publickly burnt in the market-place at /Athens, and himfeifcondemned to perpetual exile, though there was nothing at that time provedagainft him, five only this one fceptical paflage, in the beginning of a bookDiog. La. inoi his, ttcsI ixiv&iuiv oCx i^jji eiVeiv, i\V u; £»Viv, £i6' u; oCy.siri, ttoXXo. yxo rv. yraX-Jovlx•vita Prat.tlSi\ix,t^ {jn d^nXoTr,,;, xj |3fa;;(^uc wy o |3i'o? toU ai/fifttVii' Concerning the gods, I haveleemfrothing at all to fay, either that they be or be not •, there being many things, thati'p. ^76.] ' hinder the knowledge of this matter, both the obfcurity of the thing itfelf, andthe fhortnefs of human life. "Whereas atheifm, in this latter age of ours, hathbeen impudently aflerted, and moft induftrioufly promoted ; that very^tomick form, that was firft introduced (a little before Plato'i time)by Leucippus, Protagoras, and Democritus, having been alio revivedamongft us, and that with no fmall pomp and oftentation of wifdom andphilofophy.It was before obferved, that there were two feveral forms of atomical philofophy-, firfl:, the moft ancient and genuine, that was religious, called Mofchical(or if you will Mofaical) and Pythagorical ; fecondly, the adulteratedatheiftick atomology, called Leucippean or Democritical. Now accordingly,there have been in this latter age of ours two feveral fucceffive refurredionsor reftitutions of thofe two atomologies. For Renatus Cartefiusfirft revived and reftored the atomick philofophy, agreeably, for the moftpart, to that ancient Mofchical and Pyth.igorick form ; acknowledging befidcs