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

Epicurus20 Proved clearly that Incorporeal ' BookI.king God to be a body, in thefe words ' ;auToj yi^ uZixx x'vyn ihxi to\ 0£ov'airs ^1 Toh TO ssciv, Eire on SriTrori avroi; XiyuV Oicruixcil^ yxp m wwg av trtpajoojiJ'jiftJJi ; orav klru; sV uv JtivotVo, ir av nnf^o-, (/.TtSc^fJ-is -ri uv" ettsi Je (roifjLx ij-i, ti' anavTo jtwAtEf xivtrOat" Zeno implicitly affirms God to be a body, whether he meanhim to he the whole corporeal universe, or fome particular body ; for if Codwere incorporeal, how could he be fpherical ? nor could he then either move orrefl, being not properly in any place : but if God be a body, then nothing hindasbut that he may he moved. From which, and other places of Ariflotle,it is plain enough alfo, that he did fuppofe incorporeal llibftance to be unextendcd,and as fuch, not to have relation to any place. But this is athing to be difputed afterwards. Indeed fome learned men conceive Ariflotleto have reprehended Zeno without caule, and that Zeno made God to be afphere, or fpherical, in no other fenfe, than Parmenides did in that knownverfe of his ' ;Ylxno^iv flyji-^Xtsa^oclpuq tyaXifxisv ofuM.Wherein he is underftood to defcribe the divine eternity. However, itplainly appears from hence, that according to ylriftotle^% fenfe, God was c'o-wf^scr^,an incorporeal fubftance diftinct from the World.XXI. Now this doftrine, which Plato efpecially was famous for aflerting,that there was ^a-fx drufji-xTi^, incorporeal fubftance, and that the fouls of menwere fuch, but principally the Deity •, taking notice of it, endeavouredwith all his might to confute it, arguing fometimes after this manncr ; There can he no incorporeal God (as Plato maintained) not only hecaufe710 m.an can frame a conception of an incorporeal fubftance, hut alfo hecaufe ivhatfceveris incorporeal muft needs want fenfe, and prudence, and plcafure, all whichthings are included in the notion of God ; and therefore an incorporeal Deity isa contradi£lion. And concerning the foul of man ;"* o» xiyovliq a.JiJi.uiizTo\i t'lvxiTw ^v;^w iJ.a.TXiiC,-i.Ti, &c. They who fay, that the foul is incorporeal, in any otherfenfe, than as that word may be ufed to fignify a fubtile body, talk vainly andfoolifhly ; for then it could neither be able to do noi' fuffer any thing. It couldnot cB upon any other thing, hecaufe it could touch nothing ; neither could itfuffer from any thing, hecaufe it could not be touch''d by any thing ; hut it wouldhe juft like to vacuum or eihpty fpace, which can neither do nor fuffer any thing,hut only yield bodies a paffage through it. From whence it is further evident,that this opinion was profefledly maintained by fome philofophers before E-picurus histime.XXII. But Plato and Ariftotle were not the firft inventors of it ; for itis certain, that all thofe philofophers, who held the immortality of the humanfoul, and a God diftinft from this vifible world, (and fo properly thecreator of it and all its parts) did really aflert incorporeal fubftance. Forthat a corporeal foul cannot be in its own nature immortal and incorruptible,is plain to every one's underftanding, becaufe of its parts being feparablefrom one another ; and whofoever denies God. to be incorporeal, if he make. himLibro de Zcnone, Xenophane, 8c Gorgia, 3 Cicero deKatnr. Deor. Lib. i. cap. XII.cap. IV. p. 844. Tom. II. Oper. p. 2897. Tom. IX. Oper.* Apud Ariflot. in Libre jam la\idato, cap. 4 VideDiog. Laert, Lib. X, Segm. C'l, (5S.IV. p. 845. Ton. 1! Oper. ec apud Pla- p. 630,tonem in SophilU, & veterum alios.