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

Chap. IV. of many independent Gods, 435Jitudinem perfequi pojfit, cafu fieri putet ? Who is fo mad or Jlupidy aswhen he looks up to heaven, is not prefently convinced^ that there are gods ?or can perfuade himfelf, that thofe things, "which are made zvith fo much minda-nd zvifdom, as that no human Jkill is able to reach and comprehend the artificeand lontrivance of them, did all happen by chance ? To whicli purpolemore places will be afterwards cited. However, in his philolbpliickwritings it is certain, that he afftfted to follow the way of the new academy,Lt on foot by Carneades ; that is, to write fceptically, partly upon prudentialaccounts, and partly for other realbns intimated by himfelf in thefe words^i re^uirunt quid quaque de re i/Ji fentiarnus, curiofiiis id faciunt quam ne- Qg ^'. oj. i,cejfe eft. Non enim tam authoritatis in difputando quam rationis momenta [Cap. V. p.quarenda funt. ^inetiam obeft plerumque iis, qui difcere volunt, auSIoritas eo- 2886.]rum, qui fe docere prcfileniur. Dcfinunt enim fuum judicium adhibere, idquehabent ralum, quod ab eo, quern probant, judicatum vident : They, vjho wouldneeds know, what we ourfelves think concerning every thing, are more curiousthan they ought, lecaufe philofophy is not fo much a matter of authority as ofreafon ; and the authority of thofe, tvho profefs to teach, is oftentimes an hindranceto the learner'', they neglecting by that means to ufe their own judgment,fecurely taking that f.r granted, which is judged by another whom they value.Neverthelefs, Cicero in the clofe of this difcourfe De natura deorum (as St.Auftin ' alfo obferveth) plainly declares himfcIf to be more propenfe and inclinableto the doilrine of Balbus, than either that oi Velleius or Cotta ; thacis, though he did not afient to the Stoical doftrine or theology in everypoint, (himfelf being rather a Platonift than a Stoick) yet he did much preferit before, not only the Epicureifm of Velleius, but alfo the fcepticifm ofCotta. Wherefore Auguftinus Steuchus, and other learned men, quarrelwith fundry pafTages of Cicero's upon another account, not as atheidica),but as feeming to favour a multitude of independent gods; he fometime§attributing not only the government of the world, and the making of mankind,but alfo the firft conftitution and fabrick of the whole world, to godsplurally, As when he writeth thus*; Ut perpetuus mundi effet ornaiuSymagna adhibita cura eft a providentia deorum : For the perpetual adorningof the world, great cere hath been taken by the providence of thegods : And d diis immortalibus hominibus provifum ejf'e, &c. That theimmortal gods have provided for the convenience of mankind, appears fromthe very fabrick and figure of them. And that place before cited, Dico De^D.^ji.igitur providentia deorum mundum ^ omnes mundi partes initio conjtitutasAnd laftly, where he ftates thecontroverfy of that book De p^ynrLvnh,ejje ; I fay, that the world and all its parts were at firft conflituted by the providenceof the gods.N. D. thus : Utrum dii nihil agant, nihil moliantur ? An contra ab his 13a pnncipio omnia fa£la, t; conftituta Jint, (3 ad infinitum tempus regantur atquemoveantur ? M'hether the gods do nothing at all, but are void of care andtrouble ? Or whether all things were at firft made and conftituted, and ever finceAre moved and governed by them? Notwithllanding which, it is evident, thatthis learned orator and philofopher plainly acknowledged the monarchy ofthe whole, or one fupreme and univerfal Numen over all. And tiiat firftfromDe Civitate Dei Lib. IV. Cnp XXX. * De Natur. Dec. Lib. III.p. »6. Tom. Vn. Oper.