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

Chap. IV.That God h All Things.the temple ofSais, had likewife, agreeably to its infcriprion, fuch a p:p!um orveil caft over it, as Minerva or Arthemis^t Athens had •, this hieroglyphicallyto fignify, that the Deity was invifible and incomprehenfible to mortals, buthad veiled it felf in this vilible corporeal world, which is, as it were, the peplum,the exteriour variegated or embroidered veftment of the Deity. To all3 4,3which confiderations may be added, in the laft place, what Prur/z/j- hath re- luTim^ p -o;corded, that there was fomething more belonging to this Egyptian infcription,than what is mentioned by Plutarch ; namely thefe words, >^ o\i mxaaxxa-rrov, Hxi'^ i-yiviTo, and the fun luai the fruit or offfpring, "jahich Iproduced^from whence it is manifeft, that according to the Egyptians, the fun wasnot the fupreme Deity, and that the God here defcribed, was, as Pi'oclusaKoobferveth, Sriy-mfyiy.-^ ^loc, a demiurgical deity, the creator of the whole world,and of the fun. Which fupreme incorporeal deity was notwithftanding, intheir theology, faid to be all things, bccaufe it diffufed it felf thorough ail."Wherefore, whereas Plutarch ' cites this paflage out of Ilccat^us, concerningthe Egyptians, to\ -o-^utov 5-eov tw Yl^vrl to'j c-Jto-j vo;j.i^)iTtv^ that theytake the firft God, and the univerf, for cm and the fame thing ; the meaningof it cannot be, as if the firft or fupreme God of the Egyptians were thefenfelefs corporeal world, Plutarch himfelf in the very next words declaringhim to be oi'poi.n h) xekpuju^iaevov, invifible and hidden ; whom therefore the E-gyptians, as inviting him to manifcll: himfelf to them, called Hammon ; ashe elfewhere affirmeth, That the Egyptians firft God, or fupreme Deity, did feeall things, himfelf being not feen. But the forementioned paflage muft needsbe underftood thus, that according to the Egyptians, the firft God, and ton«v or the univerfe, were fynonymous expreffions, often ufcd to fignify thevery fame thing ; becaufe the firft fupreme Deity is that, which contains allthings, and difl'ufeth it felf through all things. And this dodrine was fromthe Egyptians derived to the Greeks, Orpheus declaring, vj ti rx oraiTa,that all things were one ; and after him Parmenides and other philofophers, VviTvat TO zjccM, that one zvas the univerfe or all, and that to -osx'i was i.y.'m,-rm, thatthe univerfe was immoveable ; they meaning nothing elfe hereby, but thatthe firft fupreme Deity, was both one and all things, and immovable. Andthus much is plainly intimated hy Ariflotle in thefe words, fiVl Si Tivt^ ol-sytfi Met.iph. l. i,TV syxvTo; uq S.'i ,ai:z? bVv;? (puVfa; i.-jn^p-'ipxtiTo' There are fome, who pronounced con- [Cap.V. p.cerning the whole univerfe, as being but one nature ; that is, who called the \\?'q °^'fupreme Deity to ztm or the univerfe, becaufe that virtually contained allthings in it.Neverthelcfs to ttot, or the univerfe, was frequently taken by the Pagantheologers alfo, as we have already intimated, in a more comprehenfivefenfe, ior the Deity, together with all the extent of its fecundity, God asdifplaying himfelf in the world •, or, for God and the world both together;the latter being look'd upon as nothing but an emanation or e^fflux fromthe former. And thus was the word taken by Empedocles in Plutarch *,when he affirmed, «' ri x^x-j £."uj!i tov nicrfj.o., x.>j' ixiya-j ti ts tzxvM', u£f(^, thatY ythe' Dc Ifide & bfir. p. -,54. Tom. II. Oper. * De Piacit. Philof. Lib. Leap. 5. p. S;^.