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

Chap. I. Mojlofthe ancient Phyjtologers Atomijis. 17Diodorus % liiat folved the material phsenomena by a^f^rl tx ixxxirx, thefmalleft indivifibles of body. And laftly, Metrodorus * (not Lampfacenus theEpicurean, but) Chitis, who is reported alfo to have made indivifible particlesand atoms the firft principles of bodies. But what need we any moreproof for this, that the atomical phyfiology was ancienter than Democritusand Leucippus, and not confined only to that feft, fince Arijiotle himfelf ' inthe paflages already cited doth exprefsly declare, that befides 'Democritus :tthe generality of all the other phyfiologers went that way ; A-i^/oK^iir^ y.x\oV isXiiTOi run (piirioAoj^wD, £5?^. Ti^rc\ozx\X.\i% and the mojl of the phyjtologers makeall fenfe to be touch, and refolve fenfible qualities, as the tajles of bitter andfweet, &c. into figures. And again *, he imputes it generally to all thephyfiologers that went before him, oV zr^oTepov (pva-ioXoyoi, theformer pinjiologers(without any exception) faid not well in this, that there was no black andwhite without the fight, nor bitter and fweet without the taflc. Wherefore, Ithink, it cannot be reafonably doubted, but that the generality of the oldphyfiologers before Arifloile and Democritus did purlue the atomical way,which is to refolve the corporeal phjenomena, not into forms,, qualities andfpecies, but into figures, motions and fancies.XVII. But then there will feem to be no fmall difficulty in reconcilingAriflctle with himfelf, who doth in fo many places plainly impute this philofophyto Democritus and Leucippus, as the firft fource and original ot itas alfo in falving the credit oi Lacrtius, and many other ancient writers,who do the like, Democritus having had for many ages almoft the generalcry and vogue for atoms. However, we doubt not but to give a verygood account of this bufinefs, and reconcile the feemingly difi"erent teftimoniesof thefe ancient writers, fo as to take away all contradiiflion and repugnancybetween them. For although the atomical phyfiology was in ufelong before Democritus and Leucippus, fo that they did not make it, but findit-, yet thefe two, with their confederate Atheifts (whereof Prc^^g-or^^ feemsto have been one) were undoubtedly the firft, that ever made this phyfiologyto be a complete and entire philofophy by it felf, fo as to derive theoriginal of all things in the whole univerfe from fcnfelefs atoms, that hadnothing but figure and motion, together with vacuum, and made up fuclia fyftem of it, as from whence it would follow, that there could not be any"God, not fo much as a corporeal one. Thefe two things were both ofthem before fingly and apart. For there is no doubt to be made, but thanthere hath been atheifm lurking in the minds of fome or other in all agesand perhaps fome of thofe ancient Atheifls did endeavour to philofophizetoo, as well as they could, in fome other way. And there was atomical phyfiologylikewife before, without atheifm. Bat theic two thus complicatedtogether, were never before atomical atheifm, or atheiftical atomifm. Andtherefore Democritus and his comrade Leucippus nted not be envied the gloryDof» Sext. Empiric. Lib. I adv.Phyficos, Seft. 3 Lib. de SenCu & Senfibili, cap. I\''. p.563. p. 521. Vide ctiam Lib. III. Hypotheof. jc. 'I'om. II. Opcr.cap. IV. p. i;5. 4 De Animi, Lib. U. cap. 1. p. 43. Tom,» Vide Sroboei Eclog. Phyfic, Lib, I, cap. IJ, Opcr,XIII. p. 1 7.