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

we21 Plato no Ajjertor Bo ok I.Now becaufe Plutarch'i authority paflfeth fo uncontrolled, and his teftimonyin this particular feems to be of late generally received as an oracle,and confequently the thing taken for an unqueftionable truth, that the ditheiflickdoftrine of a good and evil principle was the catholick or uriiverfaldo£lrine of the Pagan Theifts, and particularly that Plato, above allthe refl, was a profefled champion for the fame -, fhall therefore makebold to examine Plutarch's, grounds for this fo confident afTcrtion of hisand principally concerning Plato. And his grounds for imputing thisopinion to Plato are only thefe three, which fo'low. Firfl, becaufe thatphilofophtr in his Politicus ' fpeaks of a neccflary and innate appetite,that may fometimes turn the heavens a contrary way, and by that meanscaufe diforder and confufion: fecondly, becaufe in his tenth i^f Lf^/i^z/j hefpeaks of two kinds of fouls, whereof one is beneficent, but the other con.trary : and laftly, becaufe in his 1'imaus he fuppofeth the matter to havebeen inoved diforderly before the world was made, which implies, that therewas a diforderly and irrational foul confifting with it as the mover of it,matter being unable to move itfelf. But as to the firft of thefe allegationsout of Plato's Politiaa, we fhall only obferve, that that philofopher, as ifit had been piirpolely to prevent iuch an interpretation of his meaning,there as this of Plutarch's, inferts thefe very words'" ;y-W aJ Svo tive S-ew,.(pacvo~vTe laulors IvxvVo:. r^'^fpnv «uToy. Neither muji any fuch thing be fuppofed,,(IS if there were two gods, contrarily minded to one another, turning the heavensfometimes one way, and fometimes another. Which plain declarationof Plato's, fenfe, being diredtly contrary to Plutarcl/i interpretation, andthis dicheillick opinion, might ferve alio for a fufficient contutacion of hisfecond ground fiom the tenth de Legibus =, as if Plato had there affirmed,that there were two fouls moving the heavens, the one beneficent, but rheother contrary •, becaufe this would be all one as to aflcrt two gods, contrarilyminded to one another. Notwithftanding which, for a fuller anfwerthereunto, we fhall further add, that this philofopher did there, firft,only ditlribute fouls in general into good and evil, thofe moral differencesproperly belonging to that rank of beings, called by him iouls, and firftemerging in them, according to this premifed dodrine, tuu dyxSio)/ ania, )5i|/Uy;^>) tixi TKv xaAwv, xai xxymv x«i aic^pKi), J"ixaia;u t£ icai ocSlyMv' Soul is the cailfe ofgood and evil, honejl and difhonejt, jufl and unjufi.. But then afterwards,making enquiry concerning the foul of the world or heaven, what kind offoul that was, he pofitively concludes, that it was no other than a foul enduedpea Stftb with all virtue. A0. iTriu-n ^-jx^ /"E" ^5~iu V m^nxy-irx r\f/A\i TrdJla, TWJ SiQ-jcavo^r! Tratrxv dpirrv ipOKyciv 4"^?C'l'' H"^^^'' ""AEriif TTi^ixyav aura. Ath. Hofp. Since itis foul that moves all things, we muft of neceffuy affirm, that the heaven orworld is moved by fame foul or other, adorning and difpcftng of it, whether itbe the left foul, or the contrary. Clin. O Hofpes, it is certainly not holy norpious to conclude otherwife, than that a foul endued with all virtue, one ormorCyI P. 176. Oper, I Ibid. f. 175. ? P. 669. O^tt.