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

C ri A p. IV. not the faif}6 with the P^jyjtological.497plantes. ^id aperlius hic^ ^uam lib eo per Deos Confentes iritelUgi^ von corporaccekftia vel fubccelejiia, fed fublimiorem quandam naturam, nee nifi an'imisconfpicuam ? According to the philofophick doclri7ie concerning the gods ^ Venusis either the Moon, or Lucifer, or Hefperus ; but according to the poetickand civil theology of the Pagans, there were certain eternal minds^ placed abovethe heavens, diftinSf from the ftars : accordingly as Apuleius requires us to ccnfiderJupiter and Apollo, Juno and Venus, and all thofe other gods called'Confentes •,he affirming of them, that though nature bad denied them to our fight,yet notwithfianding, by the diligent contemplation of our minds, we apprehend andadmire them. Where nothing can be more plain (faith Vofiius) than that theDii Confentes were underjlood by Apuleius, neither to be celefiial norfubceleflialbodies, but a certain higher nature perceptible only to our minds. Uponwhich words of his we (hall make thefe following remarks -, firft, that thislearned writer feems here, as alfo throughout that whole book of his, to miftakethe philofophick theology of Scavola and Varro, and others, for thatwhich was phyfiologicai only ; (which phyfiological theology of the Pagansxvill be afterwards declared by us.) For the philofophick theology of thePagans did not deify natural and fenfible bodies only, but the principal partthefirof was theaderting of one fupreme and univerfal Numen, from whenceall their other gods were derived. Neither was Venus, according to this phi'lofophick and arcane theology, taken only for the moon, or for Lucifer orHefperus, as this learned writer conceives, bur, as we have already provedjfor the fupreme Deity alfo, either according to its univerfal notion, or fomeparticular confideration thereof. Wherefore the philofophick theology,both of Scavola and Varro, and others, was called natural, not as phyfiologicalonly, but (in another fenfe) as real and true; it being the theologyneither of cities, nor of ftages or theatres, but of the world, and of theTvife men in it: philofophy b>:ing that properly, which confiders the abfolutetruth and nature of things. Which philofophick theology therefore was oppofed,both to the civil and poetical, as confifling in opinion and fancyonly. Our fecond remark is, th'Xt Vojfius does here alfo feem incongruouflyto make both the civil and poetical theology, as fuch, to philofophize ; whereasthe firft of thefe was propely nothing but the law of cities and commonwealths,together with vulgar opinion and error ; and the fecond nothingbut fancy, fiffion and fabulofity. Poetarum iftafunt, faith Cottain Cicero ";wos autcm philcfophi ejjevolumus, rerumauthores, non fabularum. Thofe thingsbelong to poets, but we would be philofophers, authors of things (or realities)and not offables. But the main thing, which we take notice of in thefe wordsof Voffms is this, that they feem to imply the Confentes, and felecir, and othercivil and poetical gods of the Pagans, to have been generally accounted fomany fubftantial and eternal minds, or underflanding beings fuperceleftialand independent; their Jupiter being put only in an equality with Apollo,Juno, Venus, and the relt:. For which, fince Voffms pretends no othermanner of proof than only from Apuleius his de Deo Socralis, who was a Platonickphilofopher ; we fhall here make it evident, that he was not rightlyunderftood by Vojfius neither: which yet ought not to be thought anv dero-Sff 2* De Natur. Deor, Lib. III. Cap. XXX f.p 3096. Tom. IX. Oper.gation