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

Chap. IV. from the Pagan Pofytheifm,.f^^AFor the aflbiling of which difficulty (feeming fo formidable at firftTight) it is necefTary, that we fhould make a diligent enquiry into the trueand genuine Icnfe of this Pagan polytheifm. For fince it is impoflible, thatany man in his wits fhould believe a multiplicity of gods, according tothat idea of God before declared, that is, a multiplicity of fupreme, omnipotent,or infinitely powerful beings; it is certain, that the Pagan polytheifm,and multiplicity of gods, muft: be underftood according to fome othernotion of the word gods, or fome equivocation in the ufc of it. It hathbeen already obferved, that there were fometime amongft the Pagans fuch,who meaning nothing elfe by gods but underftanding beings fuperior tomen, did fuppofe a multitude of fuch Deities, which yet they conceived tobe all (as well as men) native and mortal, generated fucceflively out ofmatter, and corrupted again into it, as Democrittis his idols were. But thefcTheogonifts, who thus generated all things whatfoever, and therefore thegods themfelves univerfally, out of night and chaos, the ocean or fluidmatter, (notwithftanding their ufing the name gods) are plainly con.demned both by Ariftotle and Plato for down-right Atheifts, theymaking fenflefs matter the only felf-exiftent thing, and the original ofallthings.Wherefore there may be another notion of the word gods, as taken foi?underftanding beings fuperior to men, that arc not only immortal, but alfofelf-exiftent and unmade. And indeed the aflcrtors of a multiplicity offuch gods as thefe, though they cannot be accounted Theifts in a ftridt andproper fenfe (according to that idea of God before declared) yet they arcnot vulgarly reputed Atheifts neither, but looked upon as a kind of middlething betwixt both, and commonly called Polytheifts. The reafonwhereof feems to be this, bccaufe it ii generally apprehended to be eflentialto atheifm, to make fenflefs matter the fole original of all things, andconfequently to fuppofe all confcious intellectual beings to be madeor generated. Wherefore they, who on the contrary aflert ('not one but)many underftanding beings unmade and felf-exiftent, muft needs be lookedupon as thofe, who of the two approacti nearer to theifm thanto atheifm, and fo deferve rather to be called Polytheifts than A-theifts.And there is no queftion to be made, but ihat the iirgers of the forementionedobjeftion againft that idea of God, which includes onelinefsand Angularity in it, from the Pagan polytheifm, or multiplicity of gods,take it for granted, that this is to bt: underftood of many unmade felfexiftentdeities, independent upon one fupreme, that are fo many firftprinciples in the univcrfe, and partial caufes of the world. And certainly,if it could be made to appear, that the Pagan Polytheifts did univerfallyacknowledge fuch a multiplicity of unmade felf-exiftent deities, then theargument ictched from thence, againft the Jiaturality of that idea of GodE e 2propofed