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

326 7%ai Nothi?ig peripeth, Bo ox I.by them) being turned into Salaminiaca, Cafaubon therefore conjefturedthem to have been thofe Hermaick books publifhed at Athens, becaule Salaminwas not far diftant from thence. Now, it cannot be doubted, butthat this edition of Hermaick books at Athens was made by fome philofoplv. ror Pagans, and not by Chriftians ; this appearing alfo from the words of St.Cyr/Zhimfelf, where, having fpoken o^ Mofes and the agreement oi Hermeswith him, he adds, TnTro'inTXi S\ xj Tari* jocvru^v, tv ISUi; o^jj^f^alparj, 9 ffuvTcS?!-v.wf 'aSjov-jti, t« iTTixAnv 'Ef,«aVxa ttivti'/.c-i^dix P^bAi'a* 0/ ivhich Mofes 16^ (llfOywho compiled and publijhed the fifteen Hermaick hooks at Athens, makes mentionin his own difcourfe, (annexed thereunto.) For thus we conceive that placeis to be underftood, that the Pagan publiflier of the Hermaick books himfelftook notice of fome agreement, that was betwixt Mofes and Hermes.But here it is to be noted, that becaule Hermes and the Hermaick books werein fuch great credit, not only among the Chriftians, but alfo the Greekand Latin Pagans, therefore were there fome counterfeit writings obtrudedalfo under that fpecious title; fuch as that ancient botanick book mentionedby Galen, and thofe Chriftian forgeries of later times, the Ptemander andSermon en the Mount ; which being not cited by any ancient fiither or writer,were both of them doiibtlefs later than Jatnblichus, who difcovcrs no fufpicionof any Chriftian forgeries in this kind.But Cafauhn, who contends, that all the theologick books imputed toHermes 'Trifmegijl were counterfeited by Chriftians, affirms all the phi-Jofophy, doftrine and learning of them (excepting what only is Chriftianin them) to be merely Platonical and Grecanical, but not at all Egyptian ;thence concluding, that thefe books were forged by fuch Chriftians, as werefkilled in the Platonick or Grecanick learning. But firft, it is here confiderable,that fince Pythagorifm, Platonifm and the Greek learning in generalwas in great part derived from the Egyptians, it cannot be concluded, thatwhatfoever is Platonical or Grecanical, therefore was not Egyptian. Theonly inftance, i\\:i.t Cafatihon infifts upon, is this dogma in the Trifmegiftickbooks, That nothing in the world perijheth, and that de-ath is not the deftrii£lion,hut change and tranflation of things only: which, becaufe he finds amongft fomeof the Greek philofophers, he refolves to be peculiar to them only, and notcommon with the Egyptians. But fince the chief dcfign and tendency ofthat dogma was plainly to maintain the immortality, pre-exiftcnce andtranfmigration of fouls, which doctrine was unqueftionably derived fromthe Egyptians-, there is little reafon to doubt but that this dogma was itfelf E-gyptian alfo. And Pythagoras, who was the chief propagator of thisdodlrine amongft the Greeks, vJi-^ i^t yiyjiScct >sSi tpSfi'^ioJ.-.i tJv iWiv, that noreal entity (in generations and corruptions) ivas made or dfjiroyed, accordingto thofe Ovidian veifes before cited.Nee peril in tela quicquam, tnihi credite, mundoy£ed variat faciemque novat. Nafcique "jccaturIncipere ejfe aliud. Sec.did io all probability derive it, together with its fuperftrufiure, (thePre-