EX BIBLIOTHECA FRANCES A. YATES 'I 1 HE TRUE INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE: THE FIRST PART; WHEREIN All the R E A S O N and PHILOSOPHY of ATHEISM is Confuted, AND Its IMPOSSIBILITY Demonftrated. WITH A DISCOURSE concerning the T 'rue Notion of the LORD’S SUPPER; AND Two SERMON S, on i John II. 3, 4. and 1 Cor. XV. 57. B 1 RALPH CUDWORTH, D. D. THE SECOND EDITION; In which are now firft added References to the feverai Quotations in the InlelUftual Syjlem •, and an Account of the Life and Writings of the Author : By 7110 MA S BIRCH \ M. A. and F. R. S. LO N D O N: Printed for J. Walthoe , D. Midwinter , J . and J. Bonwick , W. Innys , R. Were, J. Walthoe jun. A. Ward , J. and P. Knapton , S. Birt , D. Browne , C. Hitch , T. Longman, S. Aujlen, T. 0 (borne , A. Millar, E. Wickfleed , JF. Baker , J, Hinton, J. Bcecroft , F. Go/ling, M. Dozening, and A. Wilkin. M DCCXLIII. V 'T Digitized, by the Internet Archive in 2016 • ; * tr ~ H / r bn& . ' ; . ^ ; _ _ <■ / 1 ii $ ; t uhiV bn 6 • V . ' :*n 7 1^73 ;.:r:;bai ; i.libba J i: i iib aoqn https://archive.org/details/trueintellectual01cudw_0 T O T H E Right Reverend Father in GOD, JOSEPH. \ Lord Bifhop of Briftol , AND Dean of St. Paul’s. My Lord , T HE Value of the prefent Work is fo univerfally acknowledg’d, that to offer any thing here in recommendation of it, might feem equally to reflect upon your Lordlhip’s Judgment, as on the Character of the excel- lent Author. It will be a fufficient Honour and Satisfaction to me, to have contributed in any meafure to the Improvement of the Intel- lectual Syftem , and to the fpreading a Per- formance, one of the nobleft of the laft Age, and at leaft as neceffary to the prefent, for flip- porting the grand Foundations of all Religion and Virtue, againft Ignorance, Sophiftry, and every pernicious Effect of Vice and Senfuahty upon the human Underftanding. Such a De- IV D E D 1 C A T 1 O N. fign, I perfuade mylelF, wants no Apology, efpecially to a perfon, whole Writings difplay the Evidence, and whole Character exemplifies the Beauty and Dignity of Chriftianity. I fhall therefore only add, that, upon thefe ac- counts, I am, with the higheft Efteem and Veneration, CI 1 * A My Lord, Tour Lordfhip's moft obedient and mojl humble Servant , London Novemb. 6 - 1742. T homas Birch. Advert! fement to the Reader. T HE former Edition of the Intelle&ual Syftem y tho* the moft valuable Treafure of the ancient Theolo- gy and Philofophy extant in any Language, had one confiderable DefetR, (frequent amongft even the bed Waiters, of the laR Age,) that the References of its nu- * merous Quotations were very few, and thofe obfcure and imperfect. Such as were wanting are therefore fupplied in the prefent Edition with the utmoft exa&nefs, chiefly from Dr. Laurence Mojheims Latin Tranflation of this Work, and placed at the Bottom of the Page ; thofe of the Author being Rill left in the Margin, with proper Additions, included in [ ] to render them more clear and determinate. The Dedication to the Houfe of Commons in 1647, of the Sermon on 1 John ii. 3, 4. omitted in the fecond and third Editions, is reflored likewife from the firfl. To the whole is prefix’d a new Life of the Author, wherein is given a very particular Account of his feveral excellent Works Rill in Manufcript, as well as of thofe already publifhed. An ACCOUNT of the LIFE and WRITINGS O F Ralph Cud worth, D.D. D R. Ralph Cudworth was Ton of Dr. Ralph Cudworthy at firft Fellow of Emanuel College in the Univerfity of Cambridge , and afterwards Minifter of St. Andrew's Church in that town 3 and at lad Redlor of Aller in Somerfetflire, and Chaplain to King James I. * He died in Augujl or September 1624. f Tho’ he was a man of Genius and Learn- ing, he publifh’d only a Supplement to Mr. William Perkins's Commentary upon St. Paul's Epiftle to the Galatians , of which, as well as feveral other works of that Divine, he was Editor. Our Author’s Mother was of the family of Machell y and had been nurfe to Princ t Henry y elded fon of King James I. and after Dr. Cudworth* s death, mar- ried to Dr. Stoughton ||. Our Author himfelf was born at Aller in the year 161 7, and educated with great care by his father-in-law Dr. Stoughton , and in 1630, was admitted penfioner in Emanuel College , the Doctor giving him this tefti- mony, that he was as well grounded in fchool-Iearning as any boy of his age, tli at went to the Univerfity. July 5, 1632, he was matriculated asa dudent in the Univerfity, and applied himfelf to all parts of literature with fuch vi- gour, that in 1 639, he was created Mafter of Arts with great applaufe. Soon after he w^as chofen Fellow of his college, and became an eminent Tutor there, and had at one time eight and twenty pupils ; an inftance fcarce ever known before, even in the larged Colleges of the Univerfity. Among thefe was Mr. William Temple y afterwards famous for his embaflies and writings. Not long after, he was prefented to the Re (dory of North Cadbury in Somerfetjhire, worth three hundred pounds per annum. In 1642 he publifh’d a Phfcourfe concerning the true Notion of the Lord's Supper. It was printed at London in quarto, with only the initial letters of his * See Dr. John Laurence Mofheim’s Prc- f Wood, Fafti Oxon. Vol. I. Cot. 187. id face to bis Latin tr an flat ion of Dr. Cud worth’/ Edit. London, 1721. Jmeliedtual Syfteni. Trt Pages oj this Pre- |j Molheim, ubi fupra. are not number'd. of R ALPH CUDWORTH D,D, vii his name. Bocbart , Spencer , Selden, and other eminent writers quote this difcourfe with great commendations •, and my moft ingenious and learned friend Mr. Warburton , in a Letter of excellent Remarks upon our Author, which he favour’d me with, ftyles it a mafter-piece in its kind \ and obferves that he has undoubtedly given the true nature and idea of the Sacrament , and fupported it with alibis learning. The fame year likewile appeared his treatifc intitled, 'The Union of Chrijl and the Church a Shadow, by R. C. printed at London in quarto. He took the degree of Batchelor of Divinity in the year 1 644, upon which occafion he maintained at the Commencement in the Univerfity the two fol- lowing Thefes : I. Dantur boni & mali rationes aterna & indifpenfabiles : II. Dantur fubjlantia incorporea fud naturd immor tales. Hence it appears, that even at that time he was examining and revolving in his mind thole im- portant fubjedts, which he fo long afterwards clear’d up with fuch uncom- mon penetration in his Intellectual Syftem , and other works Hill preferv’d in manufcript. In the fame year 1644, he was appointed Mailer of Clare- Hall in Cam- bridge, in the room of Dr. Pajke , who had been ejedted by the Parliamentary Vifitors. In 1645, Dr. Metcalf having refign’d the Regius profefforlhip of the Hebrew tongues, Mr. Cudworth was unanimoufly nominated on the 1 5th of October by the leven Eledlors to fucceed him. From this time he aban- don’d all the functions of a Minifter, and applied himfelf only to his acade- mical employments and ftudies, efpecially that of the Jewifli antiquities. And we find the following paflage in a manufcript letter of Mr. John Worthington, afterwards Mailer of Jefus College, dated May 12 1646. “Our learned “ friend Mr. Cudworth reads every Wednefday in the fchools. His fubjedl is “ Templum Hierofolymitanum .” When his affairs required his abfence from the Univerfity, he fubftituted Mr. Worthington in his room. March 31. 1647, he preach’d before the Houfe of Commons at Wejlminjler, upon a day of public humiliation, a fermon upon 1 John ii. 3, 4. for which he had the thanks of that Houfe returned him on the fame day. This fermon was printed the fame year at Cambridge in quarto, with the following motto in the title-page, 'Evaifot, Z t uvor d yxg iva-eplv dxgus Xois-ixvl^er and with a Dedication to the Houfe of Commons, which was omitted in the fecond and third editions, but reflored in the prefent. In 1651 he took the degree of Dodtor of Divinity. Tho’ the places, which he held in the Univerfity were very honourable, yet he found the revenue of them not fufficient to fupport him; for which reafonhe had thoughts of leaving Cambridge intirely, and in* deed adtually retir’d from it, tho’ but for a fhort time. This appeals from two manufcript letters of Mr. Worthington ; the former dated January 6. 1651. where he writes thus: “ If thro’ want of maintenance he (R.. C.) “ fhould be forced to leave Cambridge , for which place he is fo eminently “ accomplifhed with what is noble and exemplarily academical, it would “ be an ill omen.” In the latter dated January 30. 1654, is this paffage : “ After many tofiings Dr. Cudworth is, thro’ God’s provi- “ dence, returned to Cambridge, and fettled in ChrijV s College , and by his “marriage more fettled and fixed.” For upon the deceafe ofDr. Samuel] ; Bolton , via An Account of the Life and Writings Belton , Mafter of that college, in 1654, our Author was choien to fucceed him, and married the fame year. In this flationhe fpent th? reft of his . life, proving highlyferviceable to the Univerfity and the whole Qiurch o {England. In 'January 165®- he was one of the perfons nominated by a committee of the parliament to be confuted about the Englifh eradiation of theBi.ble ; as ap- pears from the following palfage oiffllhitelockeL January 1 6 th. At the grand Committee for religion , ordered, that it be re- ferred to afub-committee to fend for and advifewith Dr. Walton, Air. Hughes, Mr. Cartel! , Mr. Clark, Mr. Poulk, Dr. Cudwortrh, and fuch others as they fhall think fit and to confider of the tranjlations and wvpreffions qf the Bible , and to offer their opinions therein to this Committee ; and that it 'be- specially com- mended to the Lord Commiffioner Whiteio.cke to take care of this Bufmefs. “ This committee, fays Whitelorke, often met at my houfe, and had the “ moO. learned men in the oriental tongues to confute with in this great bufi- “ nefs, and divers excellent and learned obfervations of fome miftakes in the tranflations of the Bible in Englifli ; which yet was agreed to be the bell “ of any tranflation in the world. I took pains in -it; but it became fruitlefs “ by the parliament’s diffolution.” • < Our Author had a great fhare in the friendfhip and efteem of John Lhurloe Elq; Secretary of State to the Protestors Oliver and Richard Cromwell, who frequently correfponded with him, and confulted him with regard to the cha- racters of fuch perlons in the Univerfity, as were proper to be employ’d in po- litical and civil affairs. For which purpofe .Dm Cudworth wrote, among others, the following letter f. , “ Honoured Sir , “ I muft in the firft place crave your pardon for the delay of this my fecond “ Letter thus long, (for, I fuppofe, you have receved my former in anfwere to “ yours,) which, had not fome unavoidable oceartons hind red me, had come “ Iboner to your hands. Sir, I think there are divers men in the Univerfity “ at this time, of fingular parts and accomplifhments for learning y fome of “ which are fo farre engaged in divinity, that they cannot well divert them- “ felves to other profeffions or employments ; others perhaps fo much ad- “ dibted to a contemplative life, that they could not fo well apply themfelves “ to politicall and civill affairs. But for thofe, which I conceve to be more “ free and undetermined, I fhall here prefent you with a catalogue of fome of “ their names, fuch as I conceve befl qualified for civill employments. Firff, “ Mr. a Fellow of King's Colledge, an excellent Latiniff, and one, that hath “ travelled abroad for above ten yeares together. Fie is above 40 years of age ; “ but how he hath been or is affebled to the Parliament or prefent government, “ I cannot tell. He is now abfentfrom the Univerfity, and, I think, at prefent “ with the Earle of Devonjhire. Secondly, Dr. Bagge, Fellow of Gajus College , “ and Dobtor of Phyfick, a fingularly good and ready Latinift ; -and I beleeve “ there is none of his yeares in England equall to him in the profeflion of phy- “ fick. He hath excellent parts, but I know not certainly, whether being J ' '•* “fo ' * Memorials of the Englifh Affairs, p. 654. edit. London. 1732. in pi. f Thurloe's manufeript State-Papers Vol. XXXV ill. p. z^y. ix c/Ralph Cudworth, D. D. 44 fo eminent in that way (though a very young Doftour) he would puthimfelfe 44 upon State-employment ; neither do I fully know how he is affedted. There 44 are of Trinity Colledge fev erall, that are very good Ladnifts, and well furmlht “ with all the politer Learning ; as Mr. Valentine (a fober difcreet Man) and 44 Mr. Linne (well known for an excellent Poet.) “ Mr. Mildmay of Peter-houfe , one, whofe inclination feemes to be peculiarly 44 carried out towards Politicall and Civill employments, a Scholar and a dif- 44 creet man. 44 Mr . Croone of Emanuell Colledge , a young Mailer of Arts, of excellent 44 good parts, and a general fcholar. 44 Mr. Miles , Fellow of Clare-hall , formerly my pupill j one that hath n• ft Hilt, des Ouvrages de> S^a\ ans, Ao.'t 422. I "°4 A*. f. 3 So, &e. X V 3 1 Of R A'L P H C U D W O R T H, D. D. paffive inftmments ; but that they are under God’s direction, who conducts them, tho’ we cannot explain after what manner. Nor can the Atheifh,addc d he, retort the argument, becaufe God is the author of the regularity and order, with which thePlaftic Natures adt ; whereas, according to the A the ids. Matter moves of itfelf, without any Caule to direct it, and to give it a power of moving regularly. This dilpute was carried on dill further, with fome warmth, and a great many repetitions on both fides. But what has been faid is fufficient to give the reader a notion of this controverfy, for the pro- grefs of which he may confult the following Books : Hiftoire des Ouvrages desScavans. Decemb. 1704. Art. 12. Bibliotheque Choifie, Tom. VII. Art. 7. Reponf. aux Queflions d’un Provincial , Tom. III. Chap. 179. Bibliotheque Choifie , Tom. IX. Art. 10. Reponfe pour Mr. Bayle a Mr. Le Clerc, p. 31. annex’d to the fourth Volume of t jne Reponf. aux Queft. d’un Provincial. Upon the whole, Mr. Warburton, , in his Letter to me above cited, is of opi- nion, that our Author’s PPlaflic Life of Nature is fully overthrown by “ Monfieur Bayle , whofe fuperiority in that difpute with Monfieur Le “ Clerc, is clear and indifputable.” Monfieur Le Clerc * exprefs’d his willies, that fome Man of Learning would tranflate the Intellectual Syflem into Latin ; but this defign, tho’ re- folv’d upon and attempted by feveral perfons in Germany was never exe- cuted ’till the Year 1733, when Dr. A fyfheim publilh’d his Tranfiation of it under the following title : Radulphi Cudworth Theologize Do El or is, , 10, 1 z. * Mofheim, ubi jttpra. | Hiftory of his own Ti ne, Vol l.p. 1 S 7 . XIX 0 /*Ralph Cudworth, D. D. The Titles and Subjects of the reft of our Author’s Manufcripts are as follow : A Difcourfe of moral Good and Evil in feveral Folios, containing near jooc Pages. Heads of the Chapters of one of thofe Books. Chap. i. The Opinions of the antient Adverfaries of natural Juftice ex- plained, p. i. 2. Objedions againft Morality, p. ir. 3. Anfwers to the firft Objedion, p. 29. 4. Anfwer to the fecond and third Objedion, p. 45. 5. Inconftftencics with a Common-wealth, p. 49. 6. Juftice made by God’s arbitrary Command, p. 79. 7. The fixth and feventh Objedions anfwer’d, p. 112. 8. Plealiire ; wherein the ancient Hedonic Philofophy is explain’d, and it is largely debated, whether Pleafure is the Sutnmum Bonv.m , p. 117. 9. Anfwer to the ninth Objedion, p. 175. 10. Notion of Morality fettled, p. 198. 11. Happinefs ; and the Philofophy of Epicurus concerning it examined and refuted, p.253. 12. True Happinefs in divine Life, p. 296. 13. Refult of the former Difcourle ; incorporeal Subftance Deity, p. 363. 14. Controverfy of Liberty ftated. A new philofophical Hypothefis, P- 33 6 - 15. Objedions againft Liberty. To xyx 9 ov (pxm^m. 16. Argument from the Phaenomenon of Incontinency, p. 382. Heads of another Book of Morality, wherein Hobbes’s Philofophy is explain’d. Prolegomena *, to fhew, that if nothing is naturally juft or unjuft, nothing can be made fo. Chap. 2. Not by Laws. Chap. 3. Not by Laws of Nature. Chap. 4. Not by Covenants. Chap. 5. To explain his Dodrine, generally and particularly. Chap. 6. State of Nature. Chap. 7. Laws of Nature. Chap. 8. Common Reprefentative. Chap. 9. To difcover his Equivoca- tions. Chap. 10. About Obligation. Chap. ir. According to him, there can be no Ethic. Chap. 12. Judgment on his Politics, that no Politic can be built on thefe Principles. A Difcourfe of Liberty and Neceftity, in which the Grounds of the athe- iftical Philofophy are confuted, and Morality vindicated and explained. This Book contains 1000 pages in folio. Heads of the Chapters of one of the Books. Chap. 1. The Neceftity of all human Adions afferted by three forts of Men, and indifferent ways : firft, fome ChriftianTheo'.ogers of the latter age : fecondly, the old Zenonian Stoics : thirdly, the Democritical Phyftologers or atheiftical Fatalifts, p. 1. 2. Chriftian Fatalifts pleading, p. 37. 3. The Stoical Fatalifts pleading, p 70. 4. Atheiftical Fatalifts pleading, p. 84. 5. Anfwer to the Phenomena objeded, p. 1 19. 6. Of Motion and Senfe, p. 167. 7. Of Intelledion, p. 196. b 2 X. XX An Account of the Life - and Writings 8. Anfwer to Hobbes's Reflections, p. 305. ' ' ■*' 9. Morality, p. 317. Heads of the Chapters of another Book De libero Arbi trio. Chap. 1. Dreams. 2. Indifferences, 3. General Account. 4. Particular or full Account. 5. Definition and particular Account. 6. Aiv Imperfection not formally in God. 7. Arguments to prove fuch a thing. 8. That that, which rules all, is not dvxfuri xTry.ox'nra&'y but Kppvolx lha.r . - ' , i > . . .. . . j. 3 r . . . .. o i !>• 1 A ** | t :i > '■* . . . » * j . > . » . . . : i I . o ‘ 15 • v« ,' ..5v a . ' THE TRUE INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM O F T H E UNIVERSE: THE FIRST PART; WHEREIN All the R E A S O N and PHILOSOPH Y of AT H E I S M is confuted., AND Its IMPOSSIBILITY demonftrated. By RALPH CUDWORTH, D. D. rup*«w T»is tJwxw *H 'AN0Pflm'NH 20$ f A, # 'H ©EfA. Orige N E 9 THE SECOND EDITION} In which are now firft added References to the feveral Quotations. •T * ^ f T--% J • - - 1 riA ! v yjfj [ r .1 . r; ?v • I • si i > i , , . * .4. . . v ■ r a r - - • * 7 r r ' f ; '] j ' . - - * -- * -■ - - X X X \ ki y •r >*-+.^4 1. . \ * ► ► * ~ c i i . vA ' r 9 ) ,:>r. ; : AArfln oj .;';ao h’ i\ ■ a o a a a n q av • ' \ .1 fcf . ‘ .1 L'f , n:'i ji • • v V- ' . VlHOfl 2. f /D u 'iQ - — > - -■ ■ — ■■■ i. i ■ ■ «’ — — " THE PREFACE T O T H E READER. T HOUGH, I confers, I have feldom taken any great pleafure, in reading other men’s apologies, yet muft I at this time make fome my felf. Firft therefore, I acknowledge, that when I en- gaged the prefs, I intended only a difcourfe concerning Liberty and Neceffity, or to fpeak out more plainly, againft the fatal neceffity of all A6tions and Events ; which, upon whatfoever grounds or principles main- tain’d, will (as we conceive) ferve the defign of Atheifm, and undermine Chriftianity, and all religion, as taking away all guilt and blame, punifhments and rewards, and plainly rendring a day of judgment ridiculous ; and it is evident, that fome have purfued it of late, in order to that end. But after- wards we confider’d, that this, which is indeed a controverfy concerning the True Intellectual Syjlem of the Univerfe, does, in the full extent thereof, take in other things ; the neceffity of all aftions and events being maintained by feveral perfons, upon very different grounds, according to that tripartite Fatalifm, mentioned by us in the beginning of the firft chapter. For firft,- the Demccntick Fate is nothing but the material neceffity of all things with- out a God, it fuppofing fenfelefs matter, neceffarily moved, to be the only originakand principal of all things : which therefore is called by Epicurus, the Phyfiological ; by us, - the Atheiftick Fate. Befides which, the Divine Fate is alfo bipartite *, fome Theifts fuppofing God, both to decree and do all things in us (evil as well as good) or by his immediate influence to de- terminate all aftions, and io make them alike neceffary to us. From whence it follows, that his will is no way regulated or determined by any effen- tial and immutable goodnefs and juftice ; or that he hath nothin** of mo- rality in his nature, he being only arbitrary Will omnipotent. As alfo that all good and evil moral, to us creatures, are meer thetical or pofitive tilings xxvii xxvm The PREFACE heuu* and n<>r by law or command only, and not bf nature. This therefore may be called the Divine Fate immoral, and violent. Again, there being other divine Fatalifts, who acknowledge fuch a Deity, as both iuffers other things, befides it fell, to a<51, and hath an efiential goodnefs and juftice in its nature, and confequently, that there are things, juft and unjuft to us naturally, and not by law and arbitrary conftitution only ; and yet ne- verthelefs take away from men all fuch liberty, as might make them ca- pable of praife and difpraife, rewards and puniftiments, and objedts of di- stributive juftice ; they conceiving necefiity to be intrinfecal to the nature of every thing, in the actings of it, and nothing of contingency to be found any where : from whence it will follow, that nothing could poflibty have been otherwife, in the whole world, than it is. And this may be cal- led the Divine Fate moral, (as the other immoral,) and natural, (as the other violent ;) it being a concatenation, or implexed feries of caufes, all in them-- felvcs neceflfary, depending upon a Deity moral, (if we may fo fpeak) that is, fuch as is eflentially good, and naturally juft, as the head thereof ; the firft contriver, and orderer of all. Which kind of Divine Fate hath not only been formerly afTerted by the Stoicks, but alfo of late by divers mo- dern writers. Wherefore of the three fatalifms, or falfe hyporhefes. of the univerfe, mentioned in the beginning of this book ; one is abfolute Athe- ifm ; another immoral Theifm, or religion without any natural juftice and morality ; (all juft and unjuft, according to this hypothefis, being meer the- tica! or faditious things, made by arbitrary will and command only :) The third and laft fuch a Theifm, as acknowledges not only a God, or omni- potent underftanding Being, but alfo natural juftice and morality, founded m him, and derived from him \ neverthelefs no liberty from neceftity any- where, and therefore no diftributive or retributive juftice in the world. Whereas thefe three things are (as we conceive) the fundamentals or et fentials of true religion. Firft, that all things in the world do not float without a head and governour ; but that there is a God, an omnipotent un- derftanding Being, prefiding over all. Secondly, that this God being ef- lentially good and juft,, there is xxhov xx i 'xauov, fomething in its own. nature, immutably and eternally juft, and unjuft and not by arbitrary will, law, and command only. And laftly, that there is fomething i ^ & r. Scripture, that one defign of Chriftianity was to abolifh and extirpate the Pagan polytheifm and idolatry. And our reafons for this intended defence of Chriftianity were : Firft: becaufe we had obferved, that fome pro- fefted oppofers of atheifm, had either incurred afufpicion, or at lea ft buffered under the imputation, of being mere Theifts, or natural Religionifts only, and no hearty believers of Chriftianity, or friends to revealed Religion. From which either fufpicion or imputation therefore we thought it juftice to free our felves, we having fo unfhaken a belief, and firm affurance of the truth of the whole Chriftian Dodtrine. But, fecondly and principally, becaufe we had further obferved it to have been the method of our modern Atheifts, to make their firft afifault againft: Chriftianity, as thinking that to be the moll vulnerable ; and that it would be an eafy ftep for them, from thence, to de- molifti all religion and theifm. However, fince the fatisfying the former part of thofe contents had already taken up fo much room, that the pur- fuit of the remainder would have quite excluded our principally intended confutation of all the atheiftick ground^ ; the forementioned objection being now fufficiently anlwered, there was a neceffity, that we fiiould there break off, and leave the further account of the Pagan Idolatry and Religion, together with our Defence of Chriftianity, to fome other more convenient opportunity. And now we fhall exhibit to the reader’s view a brief and general fyno p- fis of the whole following work, together with fome particular refledlions upon feveral parts thereof, either for his better information concerning them, or for their vindication ; fome of which therefore will be of greater ufe, after the book has been read, than before. The firft chapter is an ac- count of the Atomick phyfiology, as made the foundation of the Democri- tick fate. Where the reader is to underftand, that this Democritick fate, which is one of the three falfe hypothefes of the Intellectual Syfiem, there men- tioned, is the very felf-fame thing with the Atomick atheifm, the only form of atheifm, that hath publickly appeared upon the ftage, as an entire philoio- phick fyftem, or hath indeed been much taken notice of in the world for thefe two thoufand years paft. For, though it be true, That Epic urns, (who was alfo an Atomick Atheift, as is afterwards declared, having, in all probability, therefore a mind to innovate fomething, that he might not feem to have borrowed all from Democritus,) did by violence introduce liberty of will into his hypothefis ; for the folving whereof he, rid iculoufiy deviled, that his Third Motion of Atoms, called by Lucretius • - Exiguum Clinamen Principiorwn : yet was this, as Cicero * long fince obferved, a mod heterogeneous patch, or ajjumentum of his, and altogether as contradidfious to the tenour of his own principles, as it was to the dodtrine of Democritus himfelf. There can be nothing more abfurd, than fo-r an Atheift to affert liberty of will; but it is moft of all abfurd, for an atomick one. And therefore our modern Atheifts do here plainly difclaim Epicurus, (though otherwife fo much ad- mired by them,) and declare open war againft this liberty of will •, they ap- prehending * r\ r M * £-? De Nat. Deor, L. i. c. 25. xxxn The PREFACE prehending, that it would unavoidably introduce incorporeal fubfbwce ; as ^fo well knowing, that neceffity, on the contrary, effectually overthrows all religion, it taking away guilt and blame, punifhments and rewards; to which might be added alfo prayers and devotions. And as there was a necefluy tor us here, to give Tome account of that an- cient Atomick phyfiology, with which atheifm now became thus blended and complicated ; fo do we, in this firft chapter, chiefly infill upon two things concerning it. Firft, that it was no invention of Democritus nor Leucippus, but of much greater antiquity ; not only from that tradition tranfmitced by Po/uionius the Stoick, that it derived its original from one Mofcbus a Phoe- nician, who lived before the Trojan wars, (which plainly makes it to have been Molaical •,) but alfo from Ariflotle's affirmation, that the greater part of the antient philofophers entertained this hypothefis •, and further becaufe it is certain, that divers of the Italicks, and particularly Empedocles , before Democritus , phyliologized atomically ; which is the reafon he was fo much applauded by Lucretius. Befides which, it is more than a preemption, that Anaxagoras his Homoeomery, or fimilar atomology, was but a degenera- tion from the true and genuine atomology of the ancient Italicks, that was an Anomceomery, or do&xine of diffimilar and unqualified atoms. Where- fore all that is true concerning Democritus and Leucippus , is only this, that thefe men were indeed the firft atheizers of this ancient atomick phyfiology. or the inventors and broachers of the atomick atheifm. Which is Laertius his true meaning, (though it be not commonly underflood,) when he re* cordeth of them, that they were the firft, who made unqualified atoms the principles of all things in the univerie without exception ; that is, not only of inanimate bodies, (as the other ancient religious Atomifts, the Italicks, before had done,) but alfo of foul and mind. And whereas we conceive this atomick phyfiology, as to the effentials thereof, to be unqueflionably true, viz. That the only principles of bodies are magnitude, figure, fite, motion, and reft ; and that the qualities and forms of inanimate bodies are really nothing, but feveral combinations of thefe, caufing feveral phancies in us-, (which excellent difcovery therefore, fo long ago made, is a notable inftance of the wit and fagacity of the an- cients :) fo do we in the next place make it manifeft, that this atomick phy- fiology rightly underflood is fo far from being either the mother or nurle of atheifm, or any ways favourable thereunto-, (as is vulgarly fuppofed) that it is indeed the moll diredlly oppolite to it of any, and the greateft defence againft the fame. For, firft, we have difeovered, that the principle, upon which this atomology is founded, and from whence it fprung, was no other than this, nothing out of nothing, in the true lenfe thereof ; or, that nothing can be caufed by nothing : from whence it was concluded, that in natural genera- tions there was no new real entity produced, which was not before: the ge- nuine confequence whereof was two- fold -, that the qualities and forms of inanimate bodies are no entities really diftin£l from the magnitude, figure, fite and motion of parrs; and that fouls are fubftances incorporeal, not ge- nerated out of matter. Where we have ffiewed, that the Pythagorick 3 do&rine. to the Reade r. dcxftrine, of die prae-exiftence of fouls, was founded upon the very fame prin- ciples with the Atomick phyfiology. And it is from this very principle rightly underftood, that ourfelves afterwards undertake to demonftrate the abfolute impoflibility of all Atheifm. Moreover, we have made it unde- niably evident, that the intrinfick conftitution of this Atomick phyfiology alfo is fuch, as that whofoever admits it, and rightly underftands it, muil needs acknowledge incorporeal fubftance •, which is the abfolute overthrow of Atheifm. And from hence alone it is certain to us, without any tefti- monies from antiquity, that Democritus and Leucippus could not pollibly be the firft inventors of this philofophy, they either not rightly underftanding it, or elfe wilfully depraving the fame ; and the Atomick atheifm being really nothing elfe, but a rape committed upon the Atomick phyfiology. For which reafon, we do by no means here applaud Plato, nor Arifiotle, in their reje&ing this molt ancient Atomick phyfiology, and introducing agim that unintelligible firft matter, and thofe exploded qualities and forms, into philofophy. .For though this were probably done by Plato, out of a dif- guft and prejudice againft the Atomick Atheifts, which made him not fo well confider nor underftand that phyfiology ; yet was he much difappointed of his expedlation herein, that atomology, which he exploded, (rightly under- ftood,) being really the greateft bulwark againft Atheifm ; and, on the con- trary, thofe forms and qualities, which he efpoufed, the natural feed thereof, they, befides their unintelligible darknefs, bringing fomething out of no- thing, in the impofiible fenfe ; which we fhew to be the inlet of all Athe- ifin. And thus, in this firft chapter, have we not only quite difarrned A- theifm of Atomicifm, or fhewed, that the latter (rightly underftood) af- fordeth no manner of (belter or protection to the former •, but alfo made it manifeft, that it is the greateft bulwark and defence againft the lame. Which is a thing afterwards further infilled on. As to the fecond Chapter, we have no more to fay, but only this that here we took the liberty to reveal the arcane myfteries of Atheifm, and to difcoverall its pretended grounds of reafon, that we could find any where fuggefted in writings, thofe only excepted, that are peculiar to the Hylo- zoick form, (which is directly contrary to the Atomick ;) and that to their bell advantage too ; nevertheless to this end, that thefe being afterwards all baffled and confuted, Theiftn might, by this means, obtain the greater and jufter triumph over Atheifm. In the third chapter, we thought it necelfary, in order to a fuller confu- tation of Atheifm, to confider all the other forms thereof, befides the Ato- mick. And here do we, firft of all, make a difeovery of a certain form of Atheifm, never before taken notice of by any modern writers, which we call the Hylozoick: which notwithftanding, though it were long fince ftarted by Strata, in way of oppofition to the Democritick and Epicurean hypothefis, yet becaufe it afterwards flept in perfect filence and oblivion, fhould have been here by us palled by lilently, had we not had certain knowledge of its being of late awakened and revived by fome, who were fo fagacious, as plainly to perceive, that the Atomick form could never do d their' xxx! ii XX XIV 'The PREFACE their bufinefs, nor prove defenfible, and therefore would attempt to carry on this caufe of atheifm, in quite a different way, by the life and percep- tion of matter; as alfo that this, in all probability, would ere long pub- licity appear upon the ftage, though not bare-faced, but under a difguife. Which atheiftick hypothefis is partly confuted by us, in the clofe of this chapter, and partly in the fifth. In the next place, it being certain, that there had been other philofophick Atheifls in the world before thofe A tomicks, Epicurus and Democritus ; we declare, out of Plato and Arijlotle , what that moft ancient atheiftick hypo- thefis was 5 namely, the edu&ion of all things, even life and underftanding it felf, out of matter, in the way of qualities, or as the paftions and affec- tions thereof, generable and corruptible. Which form of atheifm is ftyled by us, not only Hylopathian, but alfo Anaximandrian : however, we grant forne probability of that opinion, that Anaximander held an Homoeomery of qualified atoms, as Anaxagoras afterwards did ; the difference between them being only this, that the latter afferted an unmade mind, whereas the former generated all mind and underftanding out of thofe qualified Atoms, hot and cold, moift and dry, compounded together ; becaufe we judged this difference not to be a fufficient ground to multiply forms of atheifm up- on. And here do we give notice of that ftrange kind of religious athe- ifm, or atheiftick Theogonifm, which afferted, not only other underftanding beings, fuperiour to men, called by them Gods, but alfo, amongft thofe, one fupreme or Jupiter too ; neverthelefs native, and generated at firft out of Night and Chaos, (that is, fenfelefs matter,) as alfo mortal and corruptible again into the fame. Befides which, there is yet a fourth atheiftick form taken notice of, out of the writings of the ancients, (though perhaps junior to the reft, it feeming to be but the corruption and degeneration of Stoicifm) which concluded the whole world, not to be an animal, (as the PaganTheifts then generally fuppofed) but only one huge plant or vegetable, having an artificial, plantal, and plaftick na- ture, as its higheft principle, orderly difpofing the whole, without any mind or underftanding. And here have we fet down the agreement of all the 2theiftick forms, (however differing fo much from one another) in this one general principle, viz. that all animality, confcious life and underftand- mg, is generated out of fenfelefs matter, and corruptible again into it. Wherefore in the clofe of this third Chapter, we infift largely upon an artificial, regular, and plaftick nature, devoid of exprefs knowledge and un- derftanding, as fubordinate to the Deity ; chiefly in way of confutation of thofe Cofmo-plaftick and Hylozoick atheifms. Though we had a further defign herein alfo, for the defence of Theifm ; forafmiich as without fuch a nature, either God muft be fuppofed to do all things in the world imme- diately, and to form every gnat and fly, as it were, with his own hands ; which feemeth not fo becoming of him, and would render his providence, to human apprehenfions, laborious and diftraftious ; or elfe the whole fy- ftem of this corporeal univerfe muft refult only from fortuitous mechanifm, without the direction of any mind : which hypothefis once admitted, would unque- XXXV to the R E A D £ R. unqueftionably, by degrees, fuppJant and undermine all Theifm. And now, from what we have declared, it may plainly appear, that this digreffion of ours concerning an artificial, regular and plaltick nature, (fubordinate to the Deity) is no wen, or excrefcency in the body of this book •, but a na- tural and neceflary member thereof. In the fourth chapter ; after the idea of God fully declared, ( where we could not omit his efifential goodnefs andjuftice, or, if we may fo call it, the morality of the Deity, though that be a thing properly belonging to the fecond book, the confutation of the divine fate immoral) there is a large ac- count given of the Pagan poly theifm j to fatisfy a very confiderable objec- tion, that lay in our way from thence, againft the naturality of the idea of God, as including onelinefs and Angularity in it. For had that, upon en- quiry, been found true, which is fo commonly taken for granted, that the ge- nerality of the Pagan nations had conftantly fcattered their devotions amongft a multitude of felf-exiftent, and independent deities, they acknowledging no fovereign Numen j this would much have Humbled the naturality of the divine idea. But now it being, on the contrary, clearly proved, that the Pa- gan theologers all along acknowledged one fovereign and omnipotent Deity, from which all their other gods were generated or created ; we have there- by not only removed the forementioned objection out of the way, but alfo evinced, that the generality of mankind have conftantly had a certain pro- lepfis or anticipation in their minds, concerning the actual exiftence of a God, according to the true idea of him. And this was the rather done fully and carefully by us, becaufe we had not met with it fufficiently performed before •, A. Steuchus Eugubims having laboured inoft in this fubjedt, from whofe profitable induftry though we ihall no way detradt, yet whofoever will compare what he hath written, with ours, will find no juft caufe to think ours fuperfluous and unnecefiary, much lefs, a tranfcription out of his. In which, befides other things, there is no account at all given of the many pagan, poetical, and political gods, what they were ; which is fo great a part of our performance, to prove them really to have been but the polyonymy of one God. From whence it follows alfo, that the Pagan religion, though fufficiently faulty, yet was not altogether fo nonfenfical, as the Atheifts would reprefent it, out of defign, that they might from thence infer all religion to be nothing but a meer cheat and impofture •, they wor- ftiipping only one fupreme God, in the feveral manifeftations of his good- nefs, power, and providence throughout the world, together with his infe- riour minifters. Neverthelefs we cannot deny, that being once engaged in this fubjedt, we thought our felves the more concerned to do the b'ufinefs thoroughly and effectually, becaufe of that cpntroverfy lately agitated con- cerning idolatry, (which cannot otherwile be decided, than by giving a true account of the Pagan religion *,) and the lb confident affirmations of fome, that none could poffibly be guilty of idolatry, in the Scripture fenfe, who believed one God the Creator of the whole world : whereas it is moft cer- tain, on the contrary, that the Pagan poly theifm and idolatry confifted not in worfhipping many creators, or uncreateds, but in giving religious worfhip d 2 to XXXVI The PREFACE * . - ro creatures, befides the Creator > they directing their devotion, (as Athana- fius . * plainly affirmeth of them,) lv» dyviyu, xxl zroMoT; yewrol r, to one un- created only •, but, befides him, to many created gods. But as for the po- lemick management of this controverfy, concerning idolatry, we leave it to other learned hands, that, are already engaged in it. Moreover, we have, in this fourth chapter, largely infilled alfo upon the Trinity. The reafon whereof was, becdufe it came in our way, and our con- tents engaged us thereunto, in order to the giving a full account of the Pa- gan theology ; it being certain, that the Platonicks and Pythagoreans at leaft, if not other Pagans alfo, had their trinity, as well as Chriftians. And we could not well avoid the comparing of thefe two together : upon which oc- cafion we take notice of a double Platonick trinity *, the one fpurious and adulterated, of fome latter Platonifts ; the other true and genuine, of Plato himfelf, Parmenides , and the ancients. The former of which, though it be oppofed by us to the Chriftian Trinity, and confuted, yet betwixt the latter and that, do we find a wonderful correfpondence ; which is largely purfued in the Platonick Chriftian apology. Wherein, notwithftanding, no- thing muft be looked upon, as dogmatically aficrted by us, but only of- fered, and fubmitted to the judgment of the learned in thefe matters ; we. confining our feives, in this myfterious point of the Holy Trinity, within the compafs of thofe its three efientials declared : Firft,that it is not a Tri- nity of mcer names and words, or of logical notions only ; but of perfons or hypoftafes. Secondly, that none' of thofe perfons or hypoftafes are crea- tures, but all uncreated. And laftly, that they are all three, truely and really one God. Neverthelefs we acknowledge, that we did therefore the more copioufiy infill upon this argument, becaufe of our then defigned de- fence of Chrillianity ; we conceiving, that this parallelifm, betwixt the an- cient or genuine Platonick, and the Chriftian Trinity, might be of fome ufe to fatisfy thofe amongft us, who boggle fo much at the Trinity, and look upon it as the choak-pear of Chrillianity j when they fhall find, that the freeft wits amongft the Pagans, and the bell philofophers, who had no- thing of fuperftition to determine them that way, were lb far from being fhy of fuch an hypothefis, as that they were even fond thereof. And that the Pagans had indeed fuch a Cabala amongft them, (which fome perhaps will yet hardly believe, notwithftanding all that we have faid,J might be fur- ther convinced, from that memorable relation in Plutarch ft, of Tbefpefius Solcnfis , who, after he had been looked upon as dead for three days, revi- ving, affirmed, amongft other things, which he thought he faw or heard in the mean time in his ecftafy, this of three Gods in the form of a tri- angle, pouring in dreams into one another •, Orpheus his foul being faid to have arrived fo far ; accordingly as from the teftimonies of other Pagan writers we have proved, that a Trinity of Divine hypoftafes was a part of the Orphick Cabala. True indeed, our belief of the Holy Trinity is lounded upon no Pagan Cabala, but only Scripture revelation ; it being that * Oratione IV. contra Arianos T. I. Ope- f Libro de his, qui fero a Numine puniun- rmnp. 469. t»r, Tom. II. Oper. p. $63. ft to the Reader. ffat,- wfiich Chuftians are, or fhould be, all baptised into. Nev#thelefs diefe things are reafonably noted by us to this end, that that ffiould not be made a prejudice againll Chriftianity and Revealed Religion, nor looked upon as nich an affrightful bugbear or mormo in it, which even Pagan phifo-- fophers themfelves, and thofe of the moft accompiifbed intellctffdah,' unicfim- captivated minds, though having neither councils, nor creeds, nor Scriptures-, had fo great a propenfity and readinefs to entertain, and fuch a veneration for. In this fourth chapter, we were neceftltated, by the matter it Tel f, to run out into philology and antiquity ; as alfo in the other parts of the book, we do often give an account of the dodtrine of the ancients : which, however fome over-fevere philofophers may look upon faftidioufly, or undervalue and depreciate, yet as we conceived it often neceffary, fo poffibly may the Variety thereof not be ungrateful to others ; and this mixture of philology, throughout the whole, fweeten and allay the feverity of philolophy to them •, the main thing, which the book pretends to, in the mean time, being the phi- lofophy of religion. But for our parts, we neither call philology, nor yet philofophy, our miftrefs •, butferve our felves of either, as occafion requireth, As for the laft chapter ; though it promife only a confutation of all the atheiftick grounds, yet we do therein alfo demonftrate the abfolute impol- hbility of all atheifm, and the adtual exiftence of a God. We fay demon- ftrate, not a priori, which is impoffible and contradieftious ; but by neceflary Inference from principles altogether undeniable. For we can by no means grant to the Atheifts, that there is no more than a probable perfuafion, or opinion to be had of the exiftence of a God, without any certain knowledge or fcience. Neverthelefs, it will not follow from hence, that whofoever ffiall read chefs demonftrations of ours, and underftand all the words of them, rnuft therefore of neceftity be prefently convinced, whether he will or no, and put out of all manner of doubt or hefitancy, concerning the exiftence of a God. For we believe that to be true, which fome have affirmed, that were there any intereft of life, any concernment of appetite and paffion, againft the truth of geometrical theorems themfelves, as of a triangle’s having three angles equal to two right, whereby men’s judgments might be clouded and bribed, notwithftanding all the demonftrations of them, many would re- main, at leaft fceptical about them. Wherefore mere fpeculation, and dry mathematical rcafon, in minds unpurified, and having a contrary intereft ot Carnality, and a. heavy load of infidelity and diftrult linking them down, cannot alone beget an unihaken confidence and affurance of fo high a truth as this, the exiftence of one perfect underftanding Being, the original of all things. As it is certain alfo, on the contrary, that minds clean it d and purged from vice may, without fyllogiftical reafonings, and mathematical demon- ftrations, have an undoubted affurance of the exiftence of a God, accord ing to that of the philofopherT ttoju iv yiuxu tuv cTifur. Efvat, Purity pojjejj'es men with an affurance of the left things ; whether this affurance be called a vaticina- tion or divine lagacity, (as it is by Plato and Ariftotlef or faith, as in the Scrip- ture. For the Scripture-faith is not a mere believing of hiftorical things, anti- X.YXvii xxxvm the PREFACE and upon inartificial arguments, or teftimoiaiss only ; but a certain higher and diviner power in the foul, that peculiarly correlpondeth with the Deity. "Notwithrtanding which, knowledge or fcience added to this faith, (accord- to the Scripture advice) will make it more firm and ftedfaft, and the better able to refill thole affaults of fophiftical reafbnmgs, that fhall be made againft it. ' ; ' , In this -fifth chapter, as fometim.es elfewherfc, we thought our felves con- cerned, in defence of the divine Wifdom, Goodnefs, and Perfection againft Atheilts, to maintain, (with all the antient philolbphick Theifts,) the per- fection of the creation alfo ; or that the whole fyftem of things, taken all to- gether, could not have been better made and ordered than it is. And in- deed, this divine Goodnefs and Perfection, as difplaying and manifelting it felf in the works of Nature and Providence, is fuppofed in Scripture to be the very foundation of our Chriftian faith; when that is defined to be the fubftance and evidence rerum fperandarum ; that is, of wkatfoeyer is (by a good man) to be hoped for. No.twith Handing which, it was far from our intention therefore to conclude, that nothing neither in Nature nor Provi- dence could be otherwife than it is ; or that there is nothing left to the free will and choice of the Deity. And though we do, in the third feCtion, infill: largely upon that ancient Pythagorick Cabala, that fouls are always united to fome body or other, as alfo, that all rational and intellectual creatures confift of foul and body ; and fuggeft feveral things from reafon and Chriftian antiquity in favour of them both ; yet would we not be underftood to dogmatize in either of them, but to fubmit all to better judgments. Again, wefiiallhere advertife the reader, (though we have caution’d con- cerning it in the book it felt) that in our defence of incorporeal fubftance againft the Atheifts, however we thought ourfelves concerned to fay theutmoft, that pofiibly we could, in way of vindication of the ancients, who generally maintained it to be unextended, (which to fome feems an abfolute impoftibility ;) yet we would not be fuppofed our felves dogmatically to af- fert anymore in this point, than what all Incorporealifts agree in, that there is a fubftance fpecifically diftinct from body ; namely fuch, as confifteth not of parts feparable from one another, and which can penetrate body, and laftly, is felf-aCtive, and hath an internal energy, diftinct from that of local motion. (And thus much is undeniably evinced, by the arguments before propofed.) But whether this fubftance be altogether unextended, or ex- tended otherwife than body ; we fhall leave every man to make his own judg- ment concerning it. Furthermore, we think fit here to fuggeft, that whereas throughout this chapter and whole book, weconftantly oppofe the generation pf fouls, that is, the production of life, cogitation and underftanding, out of dead and fenfe- lefs matter ; and aftert all fouls to be as fubftantial as matter it felf: this is not done by us, out of any fond addiCtednefs to Pythagorick whimfeys, nor indeed out of a mere partial regard to that caufe of Theilm neither, which we were engaged in, (though we had great reafon to be tender of that too ;) but becaufe we were enforced thereunto, by dry mathematical reafon ; it being XXXIX to the R E A D E R. being as certain tons, as any thing in all geometry, tliat cogitation and nn- derftanding can never poffibly refult out of magnitudes, figures, fites, . and local motions (which is all that our felves can allow to body) however com- pounded together. Nor indeed in that other way of qualities, is it better conceivable, how they fhould emerge out of hot and cold, moift and dry, thick and thin ; according to the Anaximandrian atheifm. And they, who can perfuade themfelves of the contrary, may believe, fhat any thing may be caufed by any thing •, upon which fuppoution, we confefs it impoflible to us, to prove the exiftence of a God, from the phenomena. In theclofe of this fifth chapter ; becaufe the Atheifts do in the laft place pretend, theifm and religion to be inconfiftent with civil fovereignty, we were neceffitated, briefly to unravel and confute all the atheiftjck eth.icks and politicks, (though this more properly belong to our fecond book intended :) Where we make it plainly to appear, that the Atheifts artificial and factitious juftice is nothing but will and words •, and that they give to civil fovereigns no right nor authority at all, but only belluine liberty, and brutifh force. But, on the contrary, as we aflert juftice and obligation, not made by law and commands, but in nature, and pro^e this, together with confcience and religion, to be the .only bafls j^f .civJX authority * fo do we alfo maintain all the rights of civil foyer# giving both to Ceefar the things that are Ccgfar' s, and to Got! the thirig^ that are God’s. And now, having made all our apologies and reflexions, we have no more to add, but only the retractation or retraction of onepafifage, page 761. Where mentioning that opinion of a modern atheiftick writer. That cogita- tion is nothing elfe but local motion, we could not think Epicurus and Demo- critus to have funk to fuch a degree, either of fottiflmefs or impudence as this •, whereas we found caufe afterwards, upon further conflderation, to change our opinion herein, page 846. Forafmuch as when Epicurus derived liberty of will in men, merely from that motion of fenfelefs atoms declining uncertainly from the perpendicular ; it is evident, that, according to him, volition it felf mud be really local motion. As indeed in the Democritick fate, and materia! neceffity of all things it is implied, that human cogita- tions are but mechanifm and motion. Notwithftanding which, both Demo- critus and Epicurus fuppofed, that the world was made without cogitation, though by local motion. So that the meaning of thefe befotted Atheifts, (if at leaft they had any meaning) feems to have been this, That all cogita- tion is really nothing elfe but local motion ; neverthelefs all motion not co- gitation, but only in fuch and fuch circumftances, or in bodies fo modi- fied. And now we are not ignorant, that fome will be ready to condemn this whole labour of ours, and of others in this kind, againft atheifm, as alto- gether ufelefs and fuperfluous ; upon this pretence, that an Atheift is a mere Chimaera, and there is no fuch thing any where to be found in the world. And indeed we could heartily wifh, upon that condition, that all this labour of ours were fuperfluous and ufelefs. But as to Atheifts, thefe fo confident; exploders of them are both unfkiiled in the monuments of antiquity, and 3 unacquainted xlr The PREFACE to the Reader. unacquainted with the prefent age they Jive in ; others having found too great an aflurance, from their own perfonal converfe, of the reality of them. Neverthelefs, this labour of ours is not intended only for the converfion of downright and profefled Atheifts, (of which there is but little hope, they being funk into fo great a degree of fottifhnefs ;) but for the confirmation of •weak, daggering, and fceptical Theids. And nnlels thefe exploders of Athe- ids will affirm alio, that all men have condantly an unfhaken faith, and belief of the exidence of a God, without the lead mixture of doubtful didrud or hefitancy, (which if it were fo, the world could not poffibly be fo bad as now it is) they mud needs grant, fuch endeavours as thefe, for the con- firming and edablifhing of men’s minds in the belief of a God, by philo- fophick reafons, in an age fo philofophical, not to be fuperfluous and ufelefs. Imprimatur H ic Liber^ cui Titulus>7^7m ? Intellectual Syflem of the Univerfe , &c. Maii 29. 1671. Sam. Par for , Reverend™ in Chrifto Patri ac Domino, Domino Gilberts, Divina Providentia Archiep. Can- tuar. a Sacr. Dom. I THE TRUE INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE. BOOK I. CHAP. I. i . The fatal necejfity of all human actions and events maintained upon three fever al grounds , which are fo many falfe hypo the fes of the intellectual fyftem of the univerfe. 2. Concerning the mathematical or aftrological fate. 3. Con- cerning the opinion of thofe , who fuppofe a fate fuperiour to the higkejt Deity. 4. The moderation of this difcourfe. 5. The Atheiftical hypothefis or Demo- critical fate being founded upon the atomical phyfiology : the necejfity of gi- ving an account of it , and that jirfi briefly defcribed. 6 . The antiquity of this phyfiology, and the account , which is given of it by Ariftotle. 7. A clear and full record of the fame phyfiology in Plato, that hath not been taken notice of. 8. That neither Democritus, nor Leucippus, nor Protagoras, nor any Atheifts were the firft inventors of this philofophy •, and of the necejfity of being thoroughly acquainted with it, in order to the confutation of Atheifm. 9. The tradition of Pofidonius the Stoick , that Mofchus an ancient Phoe- nician was the firft inventor of the atomical phyfiology. 10. That this Mof- chus, the inventor of the atomical phyfiology, was probably the fame with Mo- chus the phyfiologer in Jamblichus, with whofe fuccejfors, pr lefts and pro- phets, Pythagoras convcrfed at Sidon. 1 1. Other probabilities for this, that Pythagoras was acquainted with the atomical phyfiology . 12. That Pythago- - ras his Monads were atoms. 13. Proved plainly, that Empedocles, who was a Pythagorean , phyfeologized atomically. 14. The fame further convinced from Plato, Ariftotle, Plutarch and Stobreus. 1 5. That Anaxagoras was a fpurious Atomift , or unfkilful imitator of that philofophy. 1 6. That Ec- pliantus the Pythagorean , Xenocrates, Heraclides, Diodorus tfWMetrodorus B ' Chius 2 'Three Fatalifms and Book I. Chius were all ancient afferters of the atomical phyjiology •, together with A- riftotleL tejlimony , that the ancient phyfiologers generally went that way . 17. How Ariftotle is to he reconciled with himfelf, and the credit of other writers to be falved, who impute, tipis philofophy .to Leucippus and Demo- critus ; that they were the frjl alheiztrs of it , or the founders of that philo- fophy , which is atkeifiically atomical. 1 8 . That the Atomifis before Democri- tus were after tors of a Deity and fubftance incorporeal, ig. A confutation ofthofe neotericks , who deny that incorporeal fubftance was ever .ajferted by any of the ancients , and the antiquity of that doctrine proved from Plato, who himfelf prof efjedly maintained it. 20. That Ariftotle likewife offer ted incorporeal fubjlance. 21. That Epicurus endeavoured to confute this opinion, as that which Plato and others of the ancients had maintained. 22. That all thofe philofophers ,, who held the immortal’ ty-of the foul , and a Deity di - fintl from the world, held incorporeal fubjlance •, andtlxit bejides Thales, Py- thagoras was a grand champion for the fame, who alfo ajferted a divine triad. 23. Parmenides an affcrler of incorporeal fubjlance, together with all thofe, who maintain'd that all things did not flow, but fomethingftand. 24. Empedocles vindicated from being either an atheijl or corporealijl at large. 25. Anaxagoras a plain offer ter of ihcprpcrtal fubjlance. 26. Inferred that the ancient Atomifis before Democritus were both theijls and incorporealifts. 27. That there is not only no inconfljlency between atomology and theology, but alfo a natural cognation proved from the crigine of tie atomical phyjiology, and firfl a general account thereof 28. A more particular account of the 0- rigin of this philofophy from that- principle of reafon. That in nature , nothing comes from nothing, nor goes to nothing. 29. That the fame principle, which made the ancients difcard fnbjlantial forms and qualities, tnade them alfo to affert incorporeal fubjlance. 30. That from the fame ground of reafon alfo they ajferted the immortality of fouls. 3 1 . Thai the do Urine of pre-exijience and tranfnigra- tion of fouls had its original from hence alfo. 32. That the ancients did not con- fine this to human fouls only , but extend it to all fouls and lives whatfoever. 33. All this proved from Empedocles, who ajferted the pre-exiftence as well as the pojl-exiftence of all fouls upon that ground. 34. Acenfure of this do Urine ; that the reafon of it is irrefragable for the pojl- eternity of all human fouls and that the hypothefls of the creation of human fouls, which falves their immortality without pre-exiftence, is rational. 35. A new hypothefls tofalve the incorporeity of the fouls of brutes, without their poft-exiftence and fucceffive tranfmigrations. 36. That this will not prejudice the immortality of human fouls. 37. That the Empedoclean hypothefls is more rational than the opinion of thofe, that would make the fouls of brutes corporeal. 38. That the con- Jlitution of the atomical phyjiology is fuch, that whofoever entertains it, and thoroughly underftands it, muft needs hold incorporeal fubftance, in five par- ticulars. 39. Two general advantages of the atomical or mechanical phyfiolo- gy \ firft, that it renders the corporeal world intelligible. 40. The fecond ad- vantage of it, that it prepares an eafy and clear way for the demonftration of incorporeal fubftance. 4 1 . Concluded, that the ancient Mofchical philofophy conflfted of two parts, atomical phyjiology, and theology or pneumatology . 42. That this entire philofophy was afterwards mangled and difmembred, fome ta- 3 Chap. I. Falfe Hypothefes of the Mundane Syjiem. king one part of it alone , and fome the other, 43. That Leucippus and Democritus, being atheiftically inclined, took the atomical phyfiology, endeavour- ing to make it fubfervient to Atheifm ; and upon what occafion they did it, and how unfuccefs fully. 44. That Plato took the theology and pneumatology of the ancients, but rejected their atomical phyfiology , and upon what accounts. 45. That Ariftotle followed Plato herein, with a commendation of AriftotleV philofophy. T HEY, that hold the neceflity of all human adlions and events, do it upon one or other of thefe two grounds ; either becaufe they fuppofe, that neceflity is inwardly effential to all agents whatfo- ever, and that contingent liberty is ra ■gdyyu dwrorurov, a thing impofliblfe or contradictious, which can have no exiftence any where in na- ture 5 the fenfe of which was thus exprefied by the Epicurean poet z , Quod res quaque Necejfum Intejlinum habeat cunblis in rebus agendis. See. That every thing naturally labours under an intefine neceffity : or elfe, becaufe though they admit contingent liberty not only as a thing pofiible, but al- fo as that which is aftually exiftent in the Deity, yet they conceive all things to be fo determin’d by the will and decrees of this Deity, as that they are thereby made neceflary to us. The former of thefe two opi- nions, that contingent liberty is ■apd.yy.u «Vj7 rbrxroj, fuch a thing as can have no exiftence in nature, may be maintained upon two different grounds •, ei- ther from fuch an hypothefis as this. That the univerfe is nothing elfe but body and local motion ; and nothing moving it felf, the action of every agent is determined by fome other agent without it •, and therefore that uTiot dvdfxyi, material and mechanical neceflity muft needs reign over all things : or elfe, though cogitative beings be fuppofed to have a certain prin- ciple of activity within themfelves, yet that there can be no contingency in their aeftions, becaufe all volitions are determined by a neceflary antecedent underftanding. Plotinus 2 makes another diftribution of Fatalifts, which yet in the con- clufion will come to the fame with the former ; 3 A\A olv ti; Sfaty®* Tars; aV. d’j t* aA?j9s; uttotvF^ocikh, oi y.h yap up)' ivo; tu® j zrxi flat dvaorucriv, oi os h.c srw A man (faith he) will not do amifs, that will divide all Fatalifts frft into thefe two general heads , namely , that they derive all things from one prin- ciple, or not ; the former of which may be called divine Fatalifts, the latter atheiftical. Which divine Fatalifts he again fubdivides into fuch, as firft make God by immediate influence to do all tilings in us; as in animals the members are not determined by themfelves, but by that which is the hege- monick in every one : and fecondly, fuch as make fate to be an implexed kries or concatenation' of caufes, all in themfelves neceflary, . whereof God is the chief. The former feems to be a defeription of that very fate, that is B 2 1 ' - main- • ' Lucret. Lib. II. v, 289, &c. . E Librp-deFato,- Emiead.III. Lib. 1. c. z. p. 250. The Mathematical or AJlrological Fate. Book I. maintain’d by fome neoterick Chriftians ; the latter is the fate of the Stoicks. Wherefore Fatalifts, that hold the neceffity of all human actions and e- vents, may be reduced to thefe three heads : Firjl , Such as afierting the Dei- ty, fuppofe it irrefpe&ively to decree and determine all things, and thereby make all actions neceffary to us •, which kind of fate, though philofophers and other ancient writers have not been altogether filent of it, yet it has been principally maintained by fome neoterick Chriftians, contrary to the fenfe of the ancient church. Secondly , Such as fuppofe a Deity, that aCting wifely, but neceftarily, did contrive the general frame of things in the world; from whence by a feries of caufes doth unavoidably refult whatfoever is now done in it. Which fate is a concatenation of caufes, all in themfelves ne- ceftary, and is that, which was afterted by the ancient Stoicks Zeno and ChryfippuSy whom the Jewifh Eftenes feemed to follow. And, laftly^ fuch as hold the material neceffity of all things without a Deity ; which fate Epicu- rus 1 calls t«iu Twu (pu txvtx in] c^nnpix r uv oXuv, nyxpi^e^xi ds x) aAArv rm tx fij xutx urnr ep ypxyyxTX. (3a inovTxc, tx; toixotw ypxyy.xTixrrv eiddra? xvxyivujA Of 9£>v»?