<1>

## A Confutation of AtheismFrom the Structure and Origin of Humane Bodies. PART I. A SERMONPREACHED At Saint Martin's in the Fields, May 2. 1692. Being the Third of the Lecture Founded by the Honourable ROBERT BOYLE, Esquire. By RICHARD BENTLEY, M. A. Chaplain to the Right Reverend Father in God, EDWARD, Lord Bishop of Worcester.

LONDON,
Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, and H. Mortlock at the Phœnix in St. Paul's Church-yard, 1692.

Imprimatur.

Geo. Royse, R. Rmo in Christo Patri ac Dno Dno Johanni Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domest.

May 7.

1692.

## ACTS XVII.27

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him: though he be not far from every one of us; for in him we Live, and Move, and have our Being.

I Have said enough in my last, to shew the fitness and pertinency of the Apostle's Discourse to the Persons he address'd to: whereby it sufficiently appears that he was no Babbler, as some of the Athenian Rabble reproach'd him; not a σπερμολόγος, a busie prating Fellow; as in another language they say [1]Sermones serere and Rumores serere in a like mode of Expression; that he did not talk at random, but was throughly acquainted with the several humors and opinions of his Auditors; and as Moses was learned in all the Wisdom of the Ægyptians, so it is manifest from this Chapter alone, if nothing else had been now extant, that St. Paul was a great Master in all the Learning of the Greeks. One thing further I shall observe from the words of the Text, before I enter upon the Subject which I proposed; That it requires some Industry and Consideration to find out the Being of God; we must seek the Lord and feel after him, <4> before we can find him by the Light of Nature. The search indeed is not very tedious, nor difficult; He is not far from every one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our Being. The consideration of our Mind and Understanding, which is an incorporeal Substance independent from Matter; and the contemplation of our own Bodies, which have all the stamps and characters of excellent Contrivance; these alone, though we look upon nothing abroad, do very easily and proximately guide us to the wise Author of all things. But however, as we see in our Text, some Thought and Meditation are necessary to it; and a man may possibly be so stupid, or wilfully ignorant or perverse, as not to have God in all his thoughts, or to say in his heart, There is none. And this being observed, we have an effectual answer to that Cavil of the Atheists; who make it an objection against the Being of God, that they do not discover him without any Application, in spite of their corrupt Wills and debauch'd Understandings. If, say they, such a God, as we are told of, had created and formed us; surely he would have left upon our Minds a native and indeleble Inscription of Himself; whereby we must needs have felt him, even without seeking; and believed in him, whether we would or no. So that these Atheists being con <5> scious to themselves, that they are void of such Belief, which (they say) if God was, would actually and necessarily be in them, do bring their own wicked Doubting and Denying of God as Evidence against His Existence; and make their very Infidelity an argument for it self. To which we reply, That God hath endued Mankind with Powers and Abilities, which we call Natural Light, and Reason, and Common Sense; by the due use of which we cannot miss of the Discovery of his Being; and this is sufficient. But as to any other original Notion and Proposition, that God is, actually imprinted on us, antecedently to all use of our Faculties, we may affirm against the Atheists, that the absence of such a Notion doth not give the least presumption against the Truth of Religion: because, though God be supposed to be, yet that Notion distinct from our Faculties would not be requisite; nor is it pretended to by Religion. First, it would not be requisite; because without any such primitive Impression, we can easily attain to the knowledge of the Deity by the sole use of our Natural Reason. And again, such an Impression would have render'd the Belief of a God irresistible and necessary, and thereby have bereaved it of all that is good and acceptable in it. For as by taking away the Freedom of Human Will, and making us <6> mere Machins under Fatal ties and impulses, it would destroy the very nature of Moral Vertue: so likewise as to Faith, there would be nothing worthy of praise and recompence in it, if there were left no possibility of Doubting or Denying. And secondly, such a radical Truth, that God is, springing up together with the essence of the Soul, and previous to all other Thoughts, is not pretended to by Religion. No such thing, that I know of, is affirmed or suggested by the Scriptures. There are several Topics there used against the Atheism and Idolatry of the Heathens; such as the visible marks of Divine Wisdom and Goodness in the works of the Creation, the vital Union of Souls with Matter, and the admirable Structure of Animate Bodies, and the like. But if our Apostle had asserted such an Anticipating Principle engraven upon our Souls before all Exercise of Reason; what did he talk of seeking the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him: seeing that if the knowledge of him was in that manner innate and perpetual, there would be no occasion of seeking, nor any hap or hazard in the finding? Such an Inscription would be self-evident without any Ratiocination or Study, and could not fail constantly to exert its Energy in their Minds. What did he talk of the Unknown God and ignorantly worshipping; <7> when if such an Original Signature were always inherent in their hearts; God could not be unknown to, or ignorantly worshipp'd by any? That primary Proposition would have been clear, and distinct, and efficacious, and universal in the minds of men. St. Paul therefore, it appears, had no apprehension of such a First Notion; nor made use of it for an argument; which (seeing that whosoever hath it, must needs know that he hath it) if it be not believed before by the Adversary, is false; and if it be believed, is superfluous: and is of so frail and brittle a texture, that whereas other arguments are not answered by bare denying without contrary Proof, the meer doubting and disbelieving of this must be granted to be ipso facto the breaking and confuting of it. Thus much therefore we have proved against the Atheist; that such an original irresistible Notion is neither requisite upon supposition of a Deity, nor is pretended to by Religion; so that neither the Absence of it is any argument against the Being of God, nor a supposed false Assertion of it an objection against the Scripture. 'Tis enough, that all are furnish'd with such Natural Powers and Capacities; that if they seriously reflect, if they seek the Lord with meditation and study, they cannot fail of finding and discovering him: whereby God is <8> not left without witness, but the Atheist without excuse. And now I haste to the Second Proposition deduced from the Text, and the argument of my present Discourse, That the Organical Structure of Human Bodies, whereby they are fitted to live, and move, and be vitally informed by the Soul, is unquestionably the workmanship of a most wise, and powerfull, and beneficent Maker.

First, 'tis allowed and acknowledged by all parties; that the Bodies of Men and other Animals are excellently well fitted for Life, and Motion, and Sensation; and the several Parts of them well adapted and accommodated to their particular Functions. The Eye is very proper and meet for seeing, the Tongue for tasting and speaking, the Hand for holding and lifting, and ten thousand Operations beside: and so for the inward Parts; the Lungs are suitable for Respiration, the Stomach for Concoction, the Lacteous Vessels for the Reception of the Chyle, the Heart for the Distribution of the Blood to all the Parts of the Body. This is matter of Fact, and beyond all dispute; and in effect is no more than to say, that Animals are Animals; for if they were deprived of these Qualifications, they could not be so. This therefore is not the matter in Question between us and <9> the Atheists: But the Controversie is here. We, when we consider so many constituent parts in the Bodies of Men, all admirably compacted into so noble an Engine; in each of the very Fingers, for example, there are Bones, and Gristles, and Ligaments, and Membranes, and Muscles, and Tendons, and Nerves, and Arteries, and Veins, and Skin, and Cuticle, and Nail; together with Marrow, and Fat, and Blood, and other Nutritious Juices; and all those Solid parts of a determinate Size, and Figure, and Texture, and Situation; and each of them made up of Myriads of little Fibres and Filaments, not discoverable by the naked Eye: I say, when We consider how innumerable parts must constitute so small a member, as the Finger, we cannot look upon it or the whole Body, wherein appears so much Fitness, and Use, and Subserviency to infinite Functions, any otherwise than as the effect of Contrivance and Skill, and consequently the Workmanship of a most Intelligent and Beneficent Being. And though now the Propagation of Mankind is in a settled method of Nature, the instrument of God; yet we affirm that its first Production was by the immediate Power of the Almighty Author of Nature: and that all succeeding Generations of Men are the Progeny of one primitive Couple. <10> This is a Religious man's account of the Frame and Origination of himself. Now the Atheists agree with us, as to the Fitness of Man's Body and its several parts to their various Operations and Functions (for that is visible and past all contradiction) but they vehemently impugn, and horribly dread the Thought, That this Usefulness of the Parts and the Whole should first arise from Wisdom and Design. So that here will be the point in debate, and the subject of our present Undertaking; Whether this acknowledged Fitness of Humane Bodies must be attributed, as we say, to a wise and good God: or, as the Atheists averr, to dead, sensless Matter. They have contrived several tricks and [2]methods of Deceit, one repugnant to another, to evade (if possible) this most cogent Proof of a Deity; All which I will propose and refute; and I hope to make it appear, that here, as indeed every where, but here certainly, in the great Dramatick Poem of Nature, is, dignus Deo vindice Nodus, a necessity of introducing a God.

And first, I will answer what Exceptions they can have against Our Account: and secondly, I will confute all the Reasons and Explications they can give of their own.

1. First, I will answer what Exceptions they can have against Our account of the Production <11> of Mankind. And they may object, That the Body it self, though pretty good in its kind and upon Their Hypothesis, nevertheless doth not look like the workmanship of so great a Master, as is pretended by Us; that Infinite Wisdom and Goodness and Power would have bestowed upon us more Senses than five, or at least these five in a much higher Perfection; that we could never have come out of the Hands of the Almighty, so subject to numerous Diseases, so obnoxious to violent Deaths, and at best of such a short and transitory Life. They can no more ascribe so sorry an Effect to an Omniscient Cause, than some ordinary piece of Clock-work with a very few motions and uses, and those continually out of order, and quickly at an end, to the best Artist of the Age. But to this we reply: First, as to the Five Senses; it would be rash indeed to affirm, That God, though he had pleased, could not have endued us with more. But thus much we may averr, That though the Power of God be infinite and perfect, yet the Capacities of Matter are within limits and bounds. Why then doth the Atheist suspect, that there may possibly be any more ways of Sensation, than what we have already? Hath he an Idea, or Notion, or Discovery of any more? So far from that, that he cannot make any addition or <12> progress in those very Senses he hath, further than they themselves have informed him. He cannot imagine one new Colour, or Tast, or Smell, beside those that have actually fallen under his respective Senses. Much less can he that is destitute of an entire Sense, have any Idea or Representation of it; as one that is born Deaf hath no Notion of Sounds; or Blind, of Colours and Light. If then the Atheist can have no Imagination of more Senses than five, why doth he suppose that a Body is capable of more? If we had double or triple as many, there might still be the same suspicion for a greater number without end; and therefore in both cases 'tis equally unreasonable and groundless. Secondly we affirm, that our Senses have that degree of perfection, which is most fit and suitable to our Estate and Condition. If the Eye were so piercing, as to descry even opake and little objects a hundred Leagues off, it would do us little service; it would be terminated by neighbouring Hills and Woods, or in the largest and evenest Plain by the very Convexity of the Earth: unless we could always inhabit the tops of Mountains and Cliffs, or had Wings too to fly aloft, when we had a mind to take a Prospect. And if mankind had had Wings (as perhaps some extravagant Atheist may think us deficient in that) <13> all the world must have consented to clip them; or else Humane Race had been extinct before this time, nothing upon that supposition being safe from Murder and Rapine. Or if the Eye were so acute, as to rival the finest Microscopes, and to discern the smallest Hair upon the leg of a Gnat, it would be a curse and not a blessing to us; it would make all things appear rugged and deformed; the most finely polish'd Chrystal would be uneven and rough: The sight of our own selves would affright us: The smoothest Skin would be beset all over with ragged Scales, and bristly Hairs. And beside, we could not see at one view above what is now the space of an Inch, and it would take a considerable time to survey the then mountainous bulk of our own Bodies. Such a faculty of sight so disproportion'd to our other Senses and to the Objects about us would be very little better than Blindness it self. And again, God hath furnished us with invention and industry; so that by Optical Glasses we can more than supply that imaginary defect of our own Eyes; and discover more remote and minute Bodies with that assistance, than perhaps the most whimsical Atheist would desire to do without it. So likewise if our Sense of Hearing were exalted proportionably to the former, what a miserable condition would Mankind <14> be in? what Whisper could be low enough, but many would over hear it? what Affairs, that most require it, could be transacted with secrecy? and whither could we retire from perpetual humming and buzzing? every breath of Wind would incommode and disturb us: we should have no quiet or sleep in the silentest nights and most solitary places; and we must inevitably be stricken Deaf or Dead with the noise of a clap of Thunder. And the like inconveniences would follow, if the Sense of Feeling was advanc'd to such a degree, as the Atheist requires. How could we sustain the pressure of our very Cloaths in such a condition; much less carry burthens, and provide for conveniences of Life? We could not bear the assault of an Insect, or a Feather, or a puff of Air without pain. There are examples now of wounded persons, that have roared for anguish and torment at the discharge of Ordnance, though at a very great distance; what insupportable torture then should we be under upon a like concussion in the Air, when all the whole Body would have the tenderness of a wound? In a word, all the Changes and Emendations, that the Atheists would make in our Senses, are so far from being Improvements, that they would prove the utter Ruine and Extirpation of Mankind.

<15>

But perhaps they may have better success in their complaints about the Distempers of the Body and the Shortness of Life. We do not wonder indeed, that the Atheist should lay a mighty stress upon this Objection. For to a man that places all his Happiness in the Indolency and Pleasure of Body, what can be more terrible than Pain or a Fit of Sickness? nothing but Death alone, the most dreadfull thing in the world. When an Atheist reflects upon Death, his very Hope is Despair; and 'tis the crown and top of his Wishes, that it may prove his utter Dissolution and Destruction. No question if an Atheist had had the making of himself, he would have framed a Constitution, that could have kept pace with his insatiable Lust, been invincible by Gluttony and Intemperance, and have held out vigorous a thousand years in a perpetual Debauch. But we answer; First, in the words of St. Paul: [3]Nay, but, O Man, who art thou, that repliest against God? shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? We adore and magnifie his most holy Name for his undeserved mercy towards us, that he made us the Chief of the visible creation; and freely acquit his Goodness from any imputation of Unkindness, that he has placed us no Higher. Secondly, Religion gives us a very good account <16> of the present Infirmity of our Bodies. Man at his first Origin was a Vessel of Honour, when he came first out of the Hands of the Potter; endued with all imaginable perfections of the Animal Nature; till by Disobedience and Sin, Diseases and Death came first into the world. Thirdly, The Distempers of the Body are not so formidable to a Religious man, as they are to an Atheist: He hath a quite different judgment and apprehension about them: he is willing to believe, that our present condition is better for us in the issue, than that uninterrupted Health and Security, that the Atheist desires; which would strongly tempt us to forget God and the concerns of a better Life. Whereas now he receives a Fit of Sickness, as the παιδεία του πατρὸς, the kind Chastisement and Discipline of his Heavenly Father, to wean his affections from the world, where he is but as on a Journey; and to fix his thoughts and desires on things above, where his Country and his Dwelling is: that where he hath placed his Treasure and Concerns, there his heart may be also. Fourthly, Most of the Distempers that are incident to us are of our own making, the effects of abused Plenty, and Luxury, and must not be charged upon our Maker; who notwithstanding out of the Riches of his Compassion hath provided for us store of excel <17> lent Medicines, to alleviate in a great measure those very Evils which we bring upon our selves. And now we are come to the last objection of the Atheist, That Life is too short. Alas for him, what pity 'tis that he cannot wallow immortally in his sensual Pleasures! If his Life were many whole Ages longer than it is, he would still make the same Complaint, [4]Brevis est hic fructus homullis. For Eternity, and that's the thing he trembles at, is every whit as long, after a thousand years as after fifty. But Religion gives us a better prospect, and makes us look beyond the gloomy Regions of Death with Comfort and Delight: When this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality. We are so far from repining at God, that he hath not extended the period of our Lives to the Longævity of the Antediluvians; that we give him thanks for contracting the days of our Trial, and receiving us more maturely into those Everlasting Habitations above, that he hath prepared for us.

And now that I have answer'd all the Atheist's Exceptions against Our account of the Production of Mankind, I come in the next place to examine all the Reasons and Explications they can give of their own.

The Atheists upon this occasion are divided <18> into Sects, and (which is the mark and character of Error) are at variance and repugnancy with each other and with themselves. Some of them will have Mankind to have been thus from all Eternity. But the rest do not approve of any infinite Successions, but are positive for a beginning; and they also are subdivided into three Parties: the first ascribe the Origin of Men to the Influence of the Stars upon some extraordinary Conjunction or Aspect: Others again reject all Astrology; and some of these mechanically produce Mankind at the very first Experiment by the action of the Sun upon duly prepared Matter: but others are of opinion, that after infinite blundering and miscarrying our Bodies at last happen'd and jump'd into this Figure by meer Chance and Accident. There's no Atheist in the world, that reasons about his Infidelity (which God knows most of them never do) but he takes one of these four Methods. I will refute them every one in the same order that I have named them: the two former in the present Discourse, reserving the others for another occasion.

1. And First, the Opinion of those Atheists that will have Mankind and other Animals to have subsisted thus eternally in infinite Generations already past, will be found to be flat Nonsense and Contradiction to it self; and repugnant <19> also to matter of Fact. First, it is contradiction to its self. Infinite Generations of Men (they say) are already past and gone: but whatsoever is now past, was once actually present; so that each of those Infinite Generations was once in its turn actually present: therefore all except One Generation were once future and not in being, which destroys the very supposition: For either that One Generation must it self have been Infinite, which is nonsense; or it was the Finite beginning of Infinite Generations between it self and us, which is, Infinity terminated at both ends, which is nonsense as before. Again, Infinite past Generations of Men have been once actually present: therefore there may be some one Man of them given, that was at infinite distance from us now: therefore that man's Son likewise, suppose forty years younger than his Father, was either at infinite distance from us or at finite: if that Son too was at infinite distance from us, then one Infinite is longer by forty years than another; which is absurd: if at finite, then forty years added to finite makes it infinite, which is as absurd as the other. And again, The number of men that are already dead and gone is infinite, as they say: but the number of the Eyes of those men must necessarily be twice as much as that of the men themselves, and that <20> of the Fingers ten times as much, and that of the Hairs of their Heads thousands of times. So that we have here one Infinite number twice, ten times, and thousands of times as great as another, which is contradiction again. Thus we see it is impossible in it self, that any successive duration should be actually and positively infinite, or have infinite successions already gone and past. Neither can these Difficulties be applied to the Eternal Duration of God Almighty. For though we cannot comprehend Eternity and Infinity; yet we understand what they are not. And something, we are sure, must have Existed from all Eternity; because all things could not emerge and start out of Nothing. So that if this præ-existent Eternity is not compatible with a successive Duration, as we clearly and distinctly perceive that it is not; then it remains, that some Being, though infinitely above our finite comprehensions, must have had an identical, invariable Continuance from all Eternity; which Being is no other than God. For as his Nature is perfect and immutable without the least shadow of change; so his Eternal Duration is permanent and indivisible, not measurable by Time and Motion, nor to be computed by number of successive moments. One day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

<21>

O Laertiade, quicquid dico, aut erit, aut non.

<31>

There's but a true and a false in any telling of Fortune; and a man that never hits on the right side, cannot be called a bad Guesser, but must miss out of design, and be notably skilfull at lighting on the wrong. And were there not formerly as great pretentions to it from the superstitious observation of the Entrails of Cows, of the flying of Vulturs, and the pecking of Chickens? Nay, the old Augurs and Southsayers had better reason to profess the Art of Divining, than the modern Astrological Atheist: for They supposed there were some Dæmons, that directed the indications. So likewise the Chaldean and Ægyptian Astrologers were much more excusable than He. It was the Religion of their Countries to worship the Stars, as we know from unquestionable Authority.[8] They believed them Intelligent Beings,and no other than very Gods; and therefore had some Reason to suspect, that they might govern Humane Affairs. The Influence of the Stars was in their apprehensions no less than Divine Power. But an Atheist, that believes the Planets to be dark, solid and sensless Bodies, like the brute Earth he treads on; <32> and the Fixt Stars and the Sun to be inanimate Balls of Fire; what Reasons can He advance for the credit of such Influences? He acknowledgeth nothing besides Matter and Motion; so that all that he can conceive to be transmitted hither from the Stars, must needs be perform'd either by Mechanism or Accident: either of which is wholly unaccountable, and the latter irreconcilable to any Art or System of Science. But if both were allowed the Atheist; yet as to any production of Mankind, they will be again refuted in my following Discourse. I can preserve a due esteem for some great Men of the last Age, before the Mechanical Philosophy was revived, though they were too much addicted to this nugatory Art. When Occult Quality, and Sympathy and Antipathy were admitted for satisfactory Explications of things, even wise and vertuous Men might swallow down any Opinion that was countenanced by Antiquity. But at this time of day, when all the general powers and capacities of Matter are so clearly understood; he must be very ridiculous himself, that doth not deride and explode the antiquated Folly. But we may see the miserable Shifts that some men are put to; when that which was first founded upon, and afterward <33> supported by Idolatry, is now become the tottering Sanctuary of Atheism. If the Stars be no Deities, Astrology is groundless: and if the Stars be Deities, why is the Astrologer an Atheist? He may easily be no Christian; and 'tis difficult indeed to be both at once: because, as I have said before, Idolatry is at the bottom; and by submitting Humane Actions and Inclinations to the Influence of the Stars, they destroy the very Essence of Moral Vertue and the Efficacy of Divine Grace: and therefore Astrology was justly condemn'd by the Ancient Fathers and Christian Emperours.[9] An Astrologer, I say, may very easily be no Christian; he may be an Idolater or a Pagan: but I could hardly think Astrology to be compatible with rank Atheism; if I could suppose any great gifts of Nature to be, where either do reside. But let him be what he will, he is not able to do much hurt by his Reasons and Example. For Religion it self, according to his Principles, is derived from the Stars. And he owns, 'tis not any just Exceptions he hath taken against Christianity, but 'tis his Destiny and Fate; 'tis Saturn in the Ninth House, and not Judgment and Deliberation, that made him an Atheist.

FINIS.

<D5v>

## Lately Printed for Henry Mortlock at thePhœnix in St. Paul's Church-Yard.

A Sermon preached before the Queen at White-Hall, Feb. 22. 168$\frac{8}{9}$. upon 1 Pet. 4. ver.18.

A Sermon preached before the King and Queen at White-Hall, March 23. 16$\frac{89}{90}$. upon Ecclesiast. 11 ver.9.

Christian Magnanimity: A Sermon preached in the Cathedral Church at Worcester, at the Time of the Assizes, Septemb. 21. 1690. upon 2 Tim. 1. ver. 46.

A Sermon preached before the Queen at White-Hall, Mar. 1. 169$\frac{0}{1}$. on Luk. 6. ver. 46.

The Mysteries of the Christian Faith Asserted and Vindicated: In a Sermon preached at St. Lawrence-Jewry in London, April 7. 1691. upon 1 Tim. 1. ver. 15.

A Sermon preached before the Queen at White-Hall, March 13. 169$\frac{1}{2}$. upon Rom. 8. ver. 6. All by the Right Reverend Father in God, Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester.

The Bishop of Worcester's Charge to the Clergy of his Diocese, in his Primary Visitation, begun at Worcester, Septemb. 11. 1690.

The Folly of Atheism, and (what is now called) Deism; even with Respect to the Present Life. A Sermon preached in the Church of St. Martin in the Fields, March 7. 169$\frac{1}{2}$. Being the First of the Lecture Founded by the Honourable Robert Boyle, Esq; The Second Edition. By Richard Bentley, M.A. Chaplain to the Right Reverend Father in God, Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Matter and Motion cannot Think: or, A Confutation of Atheism from the Faculties of the Soul. A Sermon preached at St. Mary-le-Bow, April 4. 1692. Being the Second of the Lecture Founded by the Honourable Robert Boyle, Esq; The Second Edition By Richard Bentley, M.A.

[1] Plautus. Virgil. Livius

[2] Μεθοδείας της πλάνης. Eph. 4 14.

[3] Ro. 9.20.

[4] Lucret. l. 3.

[5] Vide Observations upon the Bills of Mortality.

[6] So Diodorus Siculus, lib. 1. c. 2. Φασὶ τοίνυν Αἱγύπτιοι κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχης των ὅλων γένεσιν προώτους τοὺ: ἀνθρώπους γηνὲσθαι κατὰ τὴν Αἴγυπτον, διά τε τὴν εὐκρασίαν της χώρας, καὶ διὰ τὴν φύσιν του Νείλου, &c.

[7] Vitruvius, lib. 9. c. 4. Lucret. lib. 5. Ut Babylonica Chaldæum doctrina, &c. Apuleius de Deo Socratis: Seu illa (Luna) propio & perpeti fulgore, ut Chaldæi arbitrantur, parte luminis compos, parte altera cassa fulgoris.

[8] Maimonides More Nevochim De Zabiis & Chaldæis. Plato in Cratylo. Diodorus, lib. 1. c. 2. Eusebius Demonst. Evangel. lib. 1. c. 6. Φοίνικας τοιγαρουν καὶ Αἰγυπτίους ωρώτους ἁπάντων κατέχες λόγος ἕλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ ἀστέρας θεοὺς ἀιποφηναι.

[9] Concil. Laod. Can. 36 Conc. 6. in Trullo. Can. 61. Cod. Just. lib. 9. tit. 18. Cod. Theodos. lib. 9. tit. 16. Βασιλικων lib. 60. tit. 39.