to men of greater learning; but let him take care, he meet not with such as have more frowardness and presumption.

LECTURE XI.

Of the CREATION of the WORLD.

WHOEVER looks upon this great system of the universe, of which he himself is but a very small part, with a little more than ordinary attention, unless his mind is become quite brutish within him, it will, of necessity, put him upon considering whence this beautiful frame of things proceeded, and what was its first original; or, in the words of the poet, "From what principles all the elements were formed, and how the various parts of the world at first came together*."

Now, as we have already observed in our dissertation concerning God, that the mind rises directly from the consideration of this visible world, to that of its invisible Creator; so from the contemplation of the first and infinite mind, it descends to this visible fabric; and again, the contemplation of this latter, determines it to return with the greatest pleasure and satisfaction to that eternal -Quibusq; exordia primis

Omnia, et ipse tener mundi concreverit orbis.

VIR. Ecl. vi.

fountain of goodness, and of every thing that exists. Nor is this a vicious and faulty circle, but the constant course of a pious soul travelling, as it were, backwards and forwards from earth to heaven, and from heaven to earth; a notion quite similar to that of the angels ascending and descending upon the ladder which Jacob saw in his vision. But this contemplation, by all means, requires a pure and divine temper of mind, according to the maxims of the philosopher: "He that would see God and goodness, must first be himself good, and like the Deity *." And those, who have the eyes of their minds pure and bright, will sooner be able to read in those objects that are exposed to the outward eye, the great and evident characters of his eternal power and godhead.

We shall therefore now advance some thoughts upon the creation, which was the first and most stupendous of all the divine works: and the rather, that some of the philosophers, who were, to bę sure, positive in asserting the being of a God, did not acknowledge him to be the author or creator of the world. As for us, according to that of the epistle to the Hebrews, "by faith we understand, that the worlds were framed by the word of Godt." Of this we have a distinct history in the first book of Moses, and of the sacred scripture, which we

* Τενέθω δε πρπτον θεοειδής πᾶς και καλος εἰ μέλλει θεασασθαι θεόντε και καλον.

Plot.

† Πίςει νοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοῦ αιωνας ρήματι Θε8. Cap. xi. 3.

receive as divine.

And this same doctrine the

prophets and apostles, and, together with them, all the sacred writers, frequently repeat in their sermons and writings, as the great foundation of faith, and of all true religion; for which reason, it ought to be diligently inculcated upon the minds of all, even those of the most ignorant, as far as they are able to conceive and believe it; though, to be sure, it contains in it so many mysteries, that they are sufficient not only to exercise the most acute and learned understandings, but even far exceed their capacities, and quite overpower them; which the Jewish doctors seem to have been so sensible, or, if I may use the expression, so over sensible of, that they admitted not their disciples to look into the three first chapters of Genesis, till they arrived at the age required, in order to enter upon the priestly office.

Although the faith of this doctrine immediately depends upon the authority and testimony of the Supreme God of truth, for, as St. Ambrose expresses it, "To whom should I give greater credit concerning God, than to God himself?" it is however so agreeable to reason, that if any one choose to enter into the dispute, he will find the strongest arguments presenting themselves in confirmation of the faith of it; but those on the opposite side, if any such there be that deserve the name, quite frivolous, and of no manner of force.

* Cui enim magis de Deo, quam Deo credam. Ambros.

Tatian declared, that no argument more effectually determined him to believe the scriptures, and embrace the Christian faith," than the constant intelligible account they give of the creation of the universe *."

Let any one that pleases, choose what other opinion he will adopt upon this subject, or, as it is a matter of doubt and obscurity, any of the other hypothesis, he thinks most feasible. Is he for the atoms of Epicurus, dancing at random in an empty space, and, after innumerable trials, throwing themselves at last into the beautiful fabric which we behold, and that merely by a kind of lucky hit, or fortunate throw of the dice, without any Amphion with his harp, to charm them by his music, and lead them into the building? To say the truth, the Greek philosopher had dreamed these things very prettily, or, according to more probable accounts, borrowed them from two other blundering philosophers, Democritus and Leucippus, though he used all possible art to conceal it, that he might have to himself the whole glory of this noble invention. But whoever first invented, or published this hypothesis, how, pray, will he persuade us, that things are actually so? By what convincing arguments will he prove them? Or what credible witnesses will he produce to attest his facts? For it would neither be modest nor decent, for him nor his followers, to expect implicit faith in a matter purely phi

* Τό ἐυκαταλήπτον τῆς τε παντος ποινσεως. Tatian.

losophical and physical, and at the same time, of so great importance, especially as it is their common method smartly to ridicule and superciliously to despise the rest of mankind, as being, according to their opinion, too credulous in matters of religion. But what we have now said is more than enough upon an hypothesis so silly, monstrous and inconsistent.

After leaving the Epicureans, there is no other noted shift, that I know of, remaining for one that rejects the doctrine of the creation, but only that fiction of the Peripatetic school, concerning the eternity of the world. This Aristotle is said to have borrowed from a Pythagorean philosopher, named Ocellus Lucanus, who, in that instance, seems to have deserted not only the doctrine of his master Pythagorus, but also that of all the more ancient philosophers. It is true, two or three others are named, Parmenio, Melissus, &c. who are suspected to have been of the same sentiments with Ocellus; but this is a matter of uncertainty, and therefore to be left undetermined. And indeed, both Aristotle and Ocellus seems to have done this at random, or without proof, as they have advanced no arguments in favour of their new doctrine, that can be thought very favourable, much less cogent and convincing.

It is surely impossible to demonstrate the truth of their opinion a priori, nor did these authors attempt it. They only endeavoured to muster up some difficulties against the production of the