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

utto the READER. xxxvunqucftionably, by degrees, Aipplanc and undermine all Theifm. And no^v,from what we have declared, it may plainly appear, that this digreflion otours concerning an artificial, regular and plaftick nature, (fiilwrdinate tothe Deity) is no wen, or excrefcency in the body of this book -, a naturaland necelTary member thereof.In the fourth chapter iafter the idea of God fully declared, (where wecould not omit his effential goodnefsandjuftice, or, if wc may fo call it, themorality of the Deity, though that be a thing properly belonging to th«fecond book, the confutation of the divine fate immoral) there is a large accountgiven of the Pagan polytheifm \ to fatisfy a very confiderable objec-;tion, that lay in our way from thence, againft the naturality of the idea otGod, as including onclinels and fingularity in it. For had that, upon enquiry,been found true, whicH is fo commonly taken for granted, that the gena-alityof the Pagan nauons had conftandy fcattered their devotions amonglla multitude of felf-exlltent, and independent deities, they acknowledgingno fovereign Numen ; this would much have ftumbled the naturality ot thedivine idea. But now it being, on the contrary, clearly proved, that the Pagantheologers all along acknowledged one fovereign and omnipotent Deity,from which all their 9riier gods were generated or created -, we have therebynot only removed the forementioned Gbjtftior) out of the way, but alioevinced, that the gehcralicy of mankind have conftantly had a certain prokpTisor anticipation in their minds, concerning the actual exiftence ot aGod, according to the true idea of him. And this was the rather done fully^nd carefully by us, bccaufe we had not met with it fufficiently performedbefore ; A. Steiuhus Eugubtnus having laboured moft in this fubjedl, fromwhole profitable induftry though we fhall no way detrad, yet whofoeverv/ill 'compare what he hath written, with ours, will find no juft caufe tothink ours fuperfluous and unneceflary, much lefs, a tranfcription out ofhis. In which, befides other things, there is no account at all given ofthe inany pagan, poetical, and political gods, what they were ; which is fogreat a part of our performance, to prove them really to have been butthe polyonymy of one God. From whence it follows alfo, that the Paganreligion, though fufficiendy faulty, yet was not altogether fo nonfenfical, asthe Atheills would reprefent it, out of defign, that they migiit from thenceinfer ail religion to be nothing but a meet cheat and impofture ; they worfliippingonly one fupreme God, in the feveral manifeftations of his goodnefs,power, and providence throughout the world, together with his inferiourminifters. Neverthelefs we cannot deny, that being once engaged inthis fubjeft, we thought our felves the more concerned to do the bufinefethorouglily and efi^eftually, becaufe of that eontroveriy lately agitated concerningidolatry, (which cannot otherwife be decided, than by giving a trueaccount of the Pagan religion ;) and the fo confident affirmations of fome,that none could poffibly be guilty of idolatry, in the Scripture fenfe, whobelieved one God the Creator of the whole world : whereas it is moft certain,on tiie contrary, that the Pagan polytheifm and idolatry confifted notin worfhipping many creators, or uncieateds, but in giving religious worfhipdato