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

''Chap. I. 'Em^tdiOQl'^ino Atleiji nor Chrporealiji. ^*knowledge to be fenfe, which is indeed a plain fign of a Corporealift ; andtherefore in the next place alfo ', of compounding the foul out of the fourelements, making it to underftand every corpc real thing by fomethingof thefame within it felf, as fire by nre^ and earth by earth ; and laftly % of attributingmuch to fortune, and affirming that divers of the parts of animalswere made fuch by chance, and that there were at firll certain monorel animalsfortuitoufly produced, that were ^o-jyi-^n x-A d-Jii-srsxcx, fuch as hadfcmething of the Jhape of an ox, together with the face of a man, (though tneycould not long continue-,) which fecms to give ju IV caufe of fufpicion, thatEmpedocks atheized in the fame manner that Demccritus did.To the firft of thefe we reply, that fome others, who had alfo read Etnpedocles'spoems, were of a different judgment from Ariftotle as to that,,conceiving Empedodes not to make fenfe, but reafon the criterion of truth.Thus Empiricus informs us ' : Others fay, that, according to Empedocles, thecriterion of truth is not fenfe, but right reafon ; and alfo that right reafon is oftwo forts, the one hTo;, or divine, the other dv^oi^Trm;, or human : of -johichthe divine is inexpreffible, hut the human declarable. And there might befeveral paflages cited out of thofe fragments of Empedocles his poems yet left,to confirm this; but we fhall produce only this one;riyi-K TriS-iU £pUX£, VOfl S 11 OTiXiU Exaifov *.To this fenfe ; Sufpend thy affent to the corporeal fenfes, and conjider every thingclearly with thy mind or reafon.And as to the fecond crimination, Arifiotle ' has much weakened his ownteftimony here, by accufing Plato alfo of the very fame thing. ITAaTuv iavyus-j £iv*i • Plato compounds the foul out of the four elemeiits, hecaufe like is kno-ivnhy like, and things are from their principles. Wherefore it is probable, thatEmpedocles might be no more guilty of tiiis fault (of making the foul corporeal,and to confift of earth, water, air, and fire) than Plato was, who inall mens judgments was as free from it, as Arjfiotle himielf, if not more.For Empedocles " did in the fame manner, as Pythagoras before him, andPlato after him, hold the tranfmigration of fouls, and confequendy, boththeir future immortality and pre-exiftence ; and therefore muft needs afferttheir incorporeity ; Plutarch rightly declaring this to have been his opinionEll/at -nxi roj; fArihrrui ytyo^ora,; y.x\ rovg y,o-i] ri^v/iy.OTX; ' that aS well thofe whoare yet unborn, as thofe that are dead, have a being. He alfo alferted humanfouls to be here in a lapfed ftate ^ /xjlwjjtr-^?, x::*! (p'^yxSa^, wanderers,flrangers, and fugitives from God ; declaring, as Plotinus ' tells us,that it was a divine law, dfAxfloLwiaxi^ rxii (pw/^xT; Trui^^ ivxaiiOa, that fouhftnning fhould fall down into thefe earthly bodies. But the fulleft record of theEmpedoclean philofophy concerning the foul is contained in this of Hierccles "^,» Arift Lib I. cap. II. p. 5. Tom. II. Oper. p. 351;. Sc Plut. de Soler.ia Aniniil. Tom II.* Id. de Partibus Animal. Lib I. cip. I. p. 964. Oper.p. 470, Tom. II. Oper. & Pliyficor. Lib. If. ' Libro Adv. Co'.otem, p. 1115. Tom. If.cap. VIII. p. 47 5, & 4;-. Oper.J Lib. VII. adv. Math. §. 122. p. 395. » piutarch. de Exilio, p. 60-.4 lb. ^ 125. p. ',4-. 9 De Ammas Delcenfu in Co;-pora, En. I V.* De Anima, L. I. c. Lib. VII I. cap. I. p. 45S.II. p. 5. Tom. II. Op.« Diogen. Laert. Lib. VIII. Segm. jS.In Aurea P/cliagors Carmina, p. \ZS.^J>