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

2 2 Pythagoras and Parmenides Incorporealifls. B ao k I.that he likewife held an incorporeal Deity diftinft from the world, is a thingnot queftioned by any. But if there were any need of proving it, (becHufetheic are no monuments of his extant; perhaps it might be done from hence,becaufe he was the chief propagator of that doulrine amongft the Greeks,concerning three hypoftafes in the Deity.For, that Plato and his followers held Tftr? d^x^y.%^ u-rorai'S'iT?, three hypoftafesin the Deity, that were the firfi principles of all things, is a thingvery well known to all-, though we do not affirm, that thefe Platoniok hypoltafesare exactly the fame with thole in the Chriilian trinity. Now Platohimfelf fufficiently intimates this not to have been his own invention and-,Plotinus tells us, that it was Ko.Xv.ic-. !?o^a, an ancient opinion before Plato''%time, which had been delivered down by fome of the Pythagoricks. Wherefore,I conceive, this muft needs be one of thofc Pyrhagonck monftrofities,which Xenophon covertly taxes Plato for entertaining, and mingling withthe Socratical philofophy, as if he had thereby corrupted the purity and fimplicityof it. Though a Corporealift may pretend to be a theift -, yet I neverHeard, that any of them did ever aflert a trinity, refpeftively to the Deity,unlefs it were fuch an one, as I think not fit here to mention.XXIII. That Parmenides, who was likewife a Pythagorean, acknowledgeda Ddity diftinft from the corporeal world, is evident from Plato '. AndPlotinus tells us alfo, that he was one of them, that afferted the triad ofdivine hypoftafes. Moreover, whereas there was a great controverfy amongftthe ancient philofophers before Platoh time ', between fuch as held all thingsto flow, (as namely Heraditiis and Cratylus;) and others, who aflerted thatfome things did ftand, and that there was d-x.^Mf^'^ ouVi'a, a certain immutablenature, to wit, an eternal mind, together with eternal and immutable truths,Camongft which -wert Parmenides and Meliffus;) the former of thefe were allCorporcalifts, (this being the very reafon why they made all things to flow,becaufe they fuppofed all to be body) though thefe were not therefore all ofthem Atheifts. But the latter were all both Incorporeal ifts and Theifts ; forwhofoever holds incorporeal fubftance, muft needs (according to reafonj alfoaflerta Deity.And although we did not before particularly mention Parmenides amongftthe atomical philofophers, yet we conceive it to be maniteft from hence, thathe was one of that tribe, becaufe he was an eminent afll-rtcr of that principle,oj!?£v o''t£ yvji^xi 0-jIi (pOfipfSflK T«u o'vluii, that no real entity is either made ordeftroyed, generated or corrupted. Which we fhall afterwards plainly fhew,to be the grand fundamental principle of the atomical philofophy.XXIV. But whereas we did evidently prove before, that Empedocles wasan atomical phyfiologer, it may notwithftanding with fome colour of probabilitybe doubted, whether he were not an Atheift, or at leaft a Corporealift,becaufe Arifiotle accufes him of thefe following things. Firft % of makingknowledge» In Pai-menHe. » Arlftot. c'e Anima, Lib. III. cap. III. p. 45.* Vide Platon. in Theaeteto, p. 130, 131. Tom. II. Oper.