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

in Seneca's language, that raiia incorpcralis, that rules the matter of thewhole world. Which Stoical God was alfo called as well T^xya^ov as NkV,good as mind ; as that which is a mofl: moral, benign, and beneficent being ;according to that excellent Cleanthean defcription of him, in Clemens jllexandrinus•: T ocyoc^ov iBKroii; fj.^olou £{~i xxxe Je,Chap. IV. for a God. 423of pure perfeftion In any effeft, it mufl: needs be more in the caufe ; yet astothofe things there mentioned by Cotta, (which have all a plain mixture ofimperfedlion in them) as they could not therefore formally exift in that, whichis abfohitely perfed, fo is it fufEcient, that they are all eminently and virtuallycontained therein.By fuch argumentations as thefe (befides that taken from the topick ofprefcience and divination) did the ancient Stoicks endeavour to dcmonftratcthe exiftence of a God, or a univerfal Numen, the maker and governor ofthe whole world ; and that fuch a one, as was not a meer plaftick or methodicaland fenflefs, but a confcious and perfedtly intelleflual nature. So thatthe world to them was neither a meer heap and congeries of dead and ftupidmatter fortuitoufly compared together ; nor yet a huge plant or vegetable,that is, endued with a fpermatick principle only, but an animal informedand inlivened by an intelledlual foul. And though, being Corporealifts,they fometimes called the whole world itfelf or mundane animal,God ; and fometimes the firy principle in it, as intelleftual, and the Htgemonickof the mundane foul ; yet was the God of the Stoicks properly,not the vecy matter itfelf, but that great foul, mind and underftanding, orT£T«J]lX£VOV, (fijcaiou, oViov, fJO-fStf,Kparuv iccvrts, j^ewi/xov, xaAov, ^I'sv, &C.But this maker and governor of the whole world was mofl commonlynamed by the Stoicks Zeus and Zen, or Jupiter ; fome of them concluding,that therefore there was but one Zeus or independent Deity,becaufe the whole world was but one animal governed by one foul ; andothers of them endeavouring, on the contrary, to prove the unity and fingularityof the world from the onelinefs of this Zeus, or the fupreme Deity,fuppofed and taken for granted, and becaufe there is but one fate and providence.Which latter confequence, Plutarch would by no means allow of,he writing thus concerning it, where he pleads for a plurality of worlds ;>^ fAW TaJ'f ciWx TWu Srioijcwi' Tif av CpsSjiOft'r, n\j\;^a-joy.ijtxi\j va; EijUcfluivn [/.ix jj.ivn x, 0. Dff. Or.ITpovoia, X} V TroXXoi Aif? Xj Znvtf ia-ovlxi, TrXno-j'jiV oiruv xocucot ; tij yct,^ cc-jcyxv p- ^^SvoXXvgcZtxi Ai'«?, XV TrAji'ouff u^ fjLri Jtafl' iy.x~ifV xpyjrUx ttputov x, nyefj.ovx.T» oAs diov^ olo; -nxp vfJ-Tv X'jpt(^ XTrxiruv xj TrxTr.o iTro^oy.x^o y.ev'^, &C. Neitheris it at all confiderable, what the Stoicks here ohjeSi againjt a plurality ofworlds, they demanding, how there could be but one fate, and one providence,end one Jove, {or independent Deity) were there many worlds ? For what neceffityis there, that there mujt be more Zens or Joves than one, if there weremore worlds ? and why might not that one and the fame God of this univerfe,I i i called'In Protrcptico, Cap. VI. p. 6i. and Stromaf. Lib. V^ p. 715.