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

1 2 l^oe Antiquity of Atomology. Book I.wrote againft his taking away the abfolute natures of things. However weare of opinion, that neither Democritus, nor Protagoras, nor Leucippus wasthe firrt inventor of this philofophy ; and our reafon is, becaufe they were allthree of them Atheifts (though Protagoras alone was banifhed for that crimeby the Aihenians) and we cannot think, that any Atheifts could be the inventorsof it, much lefs that it was the genuine fpawn and brood of atheifm itfelf,as fome conceit, becaufe however thel'e Atheiils adopted it to themfelves, endeavouringto fcrve their turns of it, yet if rightly underflood, it is the moftefFeftual engine againft atheifni that can be. And we Ihall make it appearafterwards, that never any of thofe Atheifts, whether ancient or modern (howgreat pretenders foever to it) did throughly underftand it, but perpetuallycontradifted themfelves in it. And this is the reafon, why we infift fo muchupon this philofophy here, not only becaufe without the perfefl knowledgeof it, we cannotdeal with the Atheifts at their own weapon ; but alfo becaufe wedoubt not but to make a fovereign antidote againft atheifm out of that veryphilofophy, which fo many have ufed as a vchicidum to convey this poiibn ofatheifm by.IX. But befides reafon, we have alfo good hiftorical probability for thisopinion, that this philofophy was a thing of much greater antiquity thaneither Democritus or Leucippus. And firft, becaufe Pcfidonius, an ancientand learned phi lofopher, did fas both £;«//;7V«.f ' and ^/r^^o ^ tell us)avouch it for an old tradition, that the firft inventor of this atomical philofophywas one Mofchtts a Phcenician, who, as Strabo alfo notes, lived beforethe Trojan wars.X. Moreover it feems not altogether improbable, but that this Mofchus aPhcenician philofopher, mentioned by Pcjidonius, miglit be the fame withthat Mochiis a Phxnician phyfiologer in Jamblichus, with whofe fucceflbrs,priefts and prophets, he aifirms that Pythagoras, fometimes ibjourning at Sidon(which was his native city) had convers'd : which may be taken for anintimation, as if he had been by them inftrufted in that atomical phyfiology,which Mcjchus ox Modus the Phcenician is laid to have been the inventor of.Mocbiis or Mofchus is plainly a Phoenician name, and there is one Mochus aPhcenician writer cited xnAtherueus^-vihom the Latin tranflator ca.W'iMofchus ; andMr. Selden approves of theconjeftureof y/rfmaj, the publiflier oijamhlichus,that this Mochus was no other than the celebrated Mofes of the Jeivs, withwhofe fucceflbrs the Jewifti philofophers, priefts and prophets, Pythagorasconverfcd at Sidon. Some fantaftic Atomifts perhaps would here catch at this,to make their philofophy to ftand by divine right, as owing its original to revelation; whereas philofophy being not a matter of faith but reafon, menought not to affeft (as I conceive) to derive its pedigree from revelation, andby that very pretence feek to irnpofe it tyrannically upon the minds of men,•which God hath here purpofely left free to the life of their own facukies, thatI Lib. IX. adverE Machemat. p. 6zi, * Lib. XV'I. p. 718.fo finding out truth by them, they might enjoy that plcafure and fatisfadion,which arifes from thence. But we aim h^re at nothing more, than a confirmationof this truth, that the atomical phyfiology was both older than DemocrituSf