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

fromBook• g2 Concerning the Magic}, .1.the only inventor of the natural holy. Which Eufebius tells us that this Zoroaftriandefcription of God was contained verhiitim in a book entitled, Aho:y colleSlton of the Perftan momments ; as a'fo that Oflaues (lumfck" a U-nious magician, and admirer of Zoroafler) had recorded the very ianie ofhim in \(\%Oclatettchon.Now we having, in this difcourfe concerning Zorcafler and the Magi^cited the oracles, called by fome magical, and imputed to Zoroqfier, but byothers Chaldaical i we conceive it not improper to give fomc account ofthem here. And indeed if there could be any afTurance of the antiquityand fincericy of thofe reputed oracles, there would then need no other teftimonyto prove, that either Zorcajler and the Perfian Mc.gi^ or elfc at leaftthe Chaldeans, aflerted not only a divine monarchy, or one fapreme Deitythe original of all things, but alfo a trinity confiftently with the fame.And it is certain, that thofe oracles are not fuch novel things as fomcwould fufpeft, they being cited by Synefiiis \ as then venerable, and ofgreat authority, under the name of iff i >.oyix^ holy cracks ; and therebeing, of this number, fome produced by him, that are not to be found inthe copies of Pfellus and Pletho -, whence it may be concluded, that wchave only fome fragments of thefe oracles now left. And that they werenot forged by Chriftians, as fome of the Sibylline oracles undoubtedly were,feems probable from hence, becaufe fo many Pagan philofophers make ufcof their tellimonies, laying no fmall flrefs upon them •, as for exampleDamafcius, out of whom Patrititts hath made a confiderable colledion offuch of thefe oracles as are wanting in Pfellus and PUtho's copies. And welearn from Pbotitis *, that whereas Hierocles his book of fate and providencewas divided into {cvtx\ parts, the drift of the fourth of them was this,Tx htyofjitvx MyiXj ti? (Tiy-fpovixv a-j-jxyiiv, oij TIKxtxv lioyfj.ariiji^ to reconcilethe reputed oracles with Plato'j doctrines. Where it is not to be doubted, butthat thofe reputed oracles of Hierocles were the fime with thefe Magick orChaldaick oracles •, becaufe thefe are frequently cited by philofophers underthat name of ^'-oyix or oracles. Proclus upon the Tim^us, vVo tj nxj^Twi/of,J-Evvuv f*fv T« nKv^ri tmv Sfui', ^jyjii; S\ TrifxTruv fi'f ycAirti; avJ'fwv" T'he makerof the univerfe is celebrated bath by Plato, and Orpheus, and the oracles, asthe father of gods and men., "who both produceth multitudes of gods, and fendsdown fouls for the generations of men. And as there are other fragments ofthefe cited by Proclus elfcwhere under the name of hoyiy. or oracles, fo dothhe fometimes give them that higher title of SsoTraeaVoTCf 3-m^oj-iz, and ^j.-j-xyuy!«,the theology that was of divine tradition or revelation. Which magnificentencomium was beftowed in like manner upon Pythagoras his philofophyby Jamblichus ', that being thought to have been derived in greatpart from the Chaldeans and the Magi -, '.•< Sfa'u aJr^f -rrx^xSo^iijn; to xxra^zii' This philofophy of Pythagoras having been firfi divinely delivered, orrevealed by the gods, ought not to be handled by us without a religious invocationof them. And that Porphyrins was not unacquainted with thefe oraclesneither,* De Infomnii-s pafiim. ' In Vitu Pythag. Cap. I p. i, 2. Ed. Kuf-? Biblioth^ Cod. CCX^'. p. 553. teri.