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

Chap. I.fyVhto and Andotle.5jftance whereof might be given in Plutarch, writing againft Colotes the Epicurean.Wherefore Plato, that v/as a zealous aflerter of an incorporeal Djitv,diltind: from the world, and of immortal fouls, ferioufly phyfiologized onlyby matter, forms and qualities, generation, corruption and alteration; andhe did but play and toy fometimes a little with atoms and mechaniim ; aswhere he would compound the earth of cubical, and fire of pyramidal atoms,and the like. For that he did therein imitate the atomical phyfiology, is plainfl'Om thefe words of his ;' n»v'^,a. hv ^^7 tcciito. Stxioil'&at ctimx^x b'tKj, a'f )tsifi' {VVxaftu bVev o^ufACvov ^(p' 51|UMI', (n;v^Ofoii&iin-a)i/ if ttoAAuv, raV ofxn; airlcv oax^ai' Allthefe cubical and pyramidal corpufcula of the fire and earth are in themfelvcsfo fmall, that by reafon of their parvitude none of them can be perceivedSingly and alone, but only the aggregations of maity of them together,XLV. And Ariflotle here trod in Plato^s footfleps, not only in the betterpart, in aflerting an incorporeal Deity, and an immoveable firft mover ;but alfo in phyfiologizing by forms and qualities, and rejefbing that mechanicalway by atoms, which had been fo generally received amongft the ancients.Wherefore though the genius of thefe two perfons was very different, andArijlotle often contradidleth Plato, and really diflents from him in feveral particularities;yet, fo much I think. may be granted to thofe reconcilers, {Porphyry,Simplicius, and others) that the main eflentiais of their two philofophies arcthe fame.Now, I fay, the whole Ariftotelical fyftem of philofophy is infinitely to bepreferred before the whole Democritical ; though the former hath been fo muchdifparaged, and the other cried up of late amongft us. Bccaufe, though itcannot be denied, but that the Democritick hypothefis doth much more handfomelyand intelligibly folve the corporeal phenomena, yet in all thofe otherthings, which are of far the greateft moment, it is rather a madnefs than a philofophy.But the Ariftotelick fyftem is right and found here, as to thofe greaterthings; it aflerting incorporeal fubftance, a Deity diftind from the world,the naturality of morality, and liberty of will. Wherefore though a latewriter of pohticks do fo exceedingly difparage Arijlotle's Ethicks, yet we fhalldo him this right here to declare, that his Ethicks were truly fuch, and anfweredtheir tide ; but that new model of ethicks, which hath been obtrudedupon the world with fo much faftuofity, and is indeed nothing but the oldDemocritick dodrine revived, is no ethicks at all, but a mere cheat, the underminingand fubverfion of all morality, by fubftituting fomething like it inthe room of it, that is a mere counterfeit and changeling ; the defign whereofcouldnot be any other than to debauch the world.We add further, that Arifiotk'% fyftem of philofophy feems to be moreconfiftent with piety, than the Cartefian hypothefis it felf, which yet plainlyfuppofeth incorporeal fubftance. For as much as this latter makes God to contributenothing more to the fabrick of the world, than the turning round of avortex' In Timse. p. 53-. Oper.