and to this effect of old in Rome, saith Dionysius Halicarnassus, lib.7. when those Meteors and Prodigies appeared in the Ayr, after the banishment of Coriolanus, Men were diversly Affected, some said they were Gods just judgements for the execution of that good man, some referred all to natural causes, some to Stars, some thought they came by chance, some by necessity decreed ab initio, and could not be altered. The two last Opinions of Necessity and Chance, were, it seems, of greater note than the rest.

Sunt qui in Fortunæ jam casibus omnia ponunt, Et mundum credunt nullo rectore moveri, Naturâ volvente vices, &c.

For the first of Chance, as Sallust likewise informeth us, those old Romans generally received; They supposed Fortune alone gave Kingdoms and Empires, Wealth, Honours, Offices, and that for two causes; first, because every wicked, base unworthy wretch was preferred, rich, potent, &c. Secondly, because of their uncertainty, though never so good, scarce any one enjoyed them long: but after they began upon better advice to think otherwise, that every man made his own fortune.

The last of Necessity was Seneca’s tenent, that God was alligatus causis secundis, so tyed to second causes, to that inexorable necessity, that he could alter nothing of that which was once decreed, sic erat in fatis, it cannot be altered, semel jussit, semper paret Deus; nulla vis rumpit, nullæ preces, nec ipsum fulmen, God hath once said it, and it must for ever stand good, no prayers, no threats, nor power, nor thunder it self can alter it.

Zeno, Chrysippus, and those other Stoicks, as you may read in Tully 2. de divinatione, Gellius, lib.6.cap.2. &c. maintained as much. In all Ages, there have been such, that either deny God in all, or in part, some deride him, they could have made a better world, and rule it more orderly themselves, blaspheme him, derogate at their pleasure from him.

’Twas so in Plato’s time, Some say there be no gods, others that they care not for men, a middle sort grant both. Si non sit Deus, unde bona? si sit Deus, unde mala? So Cotta argues in Tully, why made he not all good, or at least tenders not the welfare of such as are good?

As the woman told Alexander, if he be not at leasure to hear Causes, and redress them, why doth he reign? Sextus Empericus hath many such Arguments. Thus perverse men cavil. So it will ever be, some of all sorts, good, bad, indifferent, true, false, zealous, ambodexters, neutralists, lukewarm, Libertines, atheists, &c.

They will see these religious Sectaries agree amongst themselves, be reconciled all, before they will participate with, or believe any: They think in the mean time, (which Celsus objects, and whom Origen confutes) we Christians adore a person put to death with no more reason then the barbarous Getes worshipped Zamolxis, the Cilicians Mopsus, the Thebans Amphiaraus, and the Lebadians Trophonius:

one Religion is as true as another, new fangled devices, all for humane respects; great witted Aristotles works are as much authentical to them as Scriptures, subtle Seneca’s Epistles as Canonical as Saint Pauls, Pindarus Odes as good as the Prophet Davids Psalms, Epictetus Enchiridion equivalent to wise Solomons Proverbs. They do openly and boldly speak this and more, some of them, in all places and companies.

Claudius the Emperour was angry with Heaven, because it thundred, and challenged Jupiter into the field: with what madness, saith Seneca? he thought Jupiter could not hurt him, but he could hurt Jupiter.

Diagoras, Demonax, Epicurus, Pliny, Lucian, Lucretius,

—— Contemptorque Deum Mezentius,

professed Atheists all in their times: though not simple Atheists neither, as Cicogna proves. lib.1.cap.1. they scoffed onely at those Pagan gods, their plurality, base and fictitious Offices. Gilbertus Cognatus labours much, and so doth Erasmus, to vindicate Lucian from scandal, and there be those that apologize for Epicurus; but all in vain, Lucian scoffs at all, Epicurus he denys all, and Lucretius his Scholar defends him in it;

Humana ante oculos fœde cum vita jaceret, In terris oppressa gravi cum relligione, Quæ caput à cœli regionibus ostendebat, Horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans, &c.

When humane kinde was drencht in superstition, With gastly looks aloft, which frighted mortal men, &c.

He alone as another Hercules, did vindicate the world from that Monster. Unkle Pliny, lib.2.cap.7. nat.hist. & lib.7.cap.55. in express words denies the Immortality of the Soul. Seneca doth little less, lib.7.epist.55. ad Lucilium, & lib.de consol. ad Martiam, or rather more.

Some Greek Commentators would put as much upon Job, that he should deny resurrection, &c. whom Pineda copiously confutes in cap.7.Job.vers.9. Aristotle is hardly censured of some, both Divines and Philosophers. S. Justine in Parænetica ad gentes, Greg. Nazianzen. in disput. adversus Eun. Theodoret. lib.5. de curat. græc. affec. Origen. lib. de principiis.

Pomponatius justifies in his Tract (so stiled at least) De immortalitate Animæ, Scaliger, (who would forswear himself at any time, saith Patritius, in defence of his great master Aristotle) and Dandinus, lib.3. de anima, acknowledges as much.

Averroes oppugnes all spirits and supream powers; of late Brunus, (infœlix Brunus, Kepler cals him) Machiavel, Cæsar Vanninus lately burned at Tolose in France, and Pet. Aretine, have publikely maintained such Atheistical paradoxes,

with that Italian Bocase, with his Fable of three Rings, &c. ex quo infert haud posse internosci, quæ sit verior Religio, Judaica, Mahometana, an Christiana, quoniam eadem signa, &c.