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

Chap. I. either an Atheijl or Corpcrealijl. 2 5But what then fhall we fay to thofe other things, which E-fipedocks ischarged with by Arlflotle, that feem to have fo rank a fmell of athcifm ?Certainly thofe mungril and biform animals, that are faid to have fpriing upout of the earth by chance, look as if they were more a-kin to Democrilusthan Empedocles; and probably it is the fault of the copies, that it is read o-therwife, there being no other philofopher that I know of, that could everfind any fuch thing in Empedocles his poems '. But for the reft, \i Arijhtledo not mifreprefent Empedocles, as he often doth Plato, then it muft begranted, that he being a mechanical phyfiologer, as well as theologer, didfomething too much indulge to fortuitous mechanil'm ; which feems to be anextravagancy, that mechanical philofophers and Atomifts have been alwaysmore or lefs fubjedl to. But Ariftotle doth not charge Empedocles with refolvingall things into fortuitous mechatiifm, as fome philofophers have done oflate, who yet pretend to be Thcifts and Incorporealifts, but only that hewould explain fome things in that way. Nay, he clearly puts a difference betwixtEmpedocles and the Democritick Atheifts in thefe words fubjoined ' ; Eit»Si TivE,-, &c. which is as if he fhould have faid, Empedocles refolvedfeme thingsin the fabrick andJlruSfure of animals into fortuitous mechan'.fm ; but there arecertain other philofophers, namely Leucippus and Democritus, tvho v:otddhave all things 'iuhatfoever in the iihole world, heaven and earth and animals,to be made by chance and the fortuitous motion of atoms, without a Deitv. Itfeems very plain, that Empedocles his Pbilia and Neikos, his friendfliip anddifcord, which he makes to be the c^^yji S^ccrrr^i'^, the aBive caufe, andprinciple of motion in the univerfe, was a certain plallick power, fuperior tofortuitous mechanifm : and Ariftotle himfelf acknowledges fomewhere as much.And Plutarch tells us % that, according to Empedocles, the order and lyiK-mof the world is not the refult of material caufcs and fortuitous mechanifm,but of a divine wifdom, alTigning to every thing oJx 'i-i n (pj -i,- Wwo-i x.(^foc-j^dxx' w ri upog to xoivo'i/ 'ioym •nroSsiVJvTa^K' not fuch a place as nature wouldgiveit, but fuch as is moft convenient for the good of the whole. Simplicius *, whohad read Empedocles, acquaints us, that he made two worlds, the one intt-l-Jeftual, the other fcnfible ; and the former of thefe to be the exemplar andarchetype of the latter. And fo the writer De Placitis Philofophorum obferves', th3.t Empedocles made S-lio riXui;, rov i^Xv df^iTj-n-o-i, ~o\i Si (pxrj6iJ.v,o-j,two funs, the one archetypal and inteliigible, the other apparent cr fcnfible.But I need take no more pains to purge Empedocles from thofe two imputationsof corporealifm and atheifm, fn;ce he hath fo fully confuted themhimfelf in thofe fragments of his ftill extant. Firft, by expreflnig fuch ahearty refentment of the excellency- of piety, and the wretchednefs and fottilhneisof atheifm in thefe verfes :A;iAoj S w (rxoTOETcra S'etouiTEpi Jog« iJ,iy.Y\\i'j.E> SomzVtrCcsoC Empeiiockf, -wheYcmhcex- 4 Commentai*. ad Ai-iflot. Libr. Pliyficor.prefly maintains th;it opinion, are extant in p: 74. b. Edit. Graec. Aldl-.s.^lietu de Naiuii Animalium, Lib. XVI. * Lib. II. cip. XX. p. 903. Tom. II.c. XXIX. Oner. PlutarLhi.» Pbyficor. Lib. II. cap. IV. p. 4-0. Oper. « Apud Clement. Akxandrin. Stromat.3 Sympollac. Lib. I. (TiikH. II. p. (^iS. Lib, V. cap. XIV. p. 733.To