Page images
PDF
EPUB

For this purpose I fhall lay before you, and in as intelligible a manner as I can (for I will not undertake to make the two difcourfes which, it will be neceffary for me to give on this fubject, perfectly intelligible to all), what it was that the philofophers among the ancients really thought concerning the fyftem of nature, and the government of the world, and also concerning the nature of man, and his future deftination, with fome of their ideas concerning the principles of morals, that you may compare them with those that are advanced in the fcriptures. And if it appear that these are more confonant to reafon, it will afford a confiderable prefumption that they were of divine origin. For how can it be fuppofed that the authors of the books of fcripture, who had no advantage of literature, and whom unbelievers treat with the greatest contempt, for their ignorance and barbarity, should have adopted a more rational system on thefe great fubjects than those who have been the most celebrated for their wifdom in the moft polished and civilized nations in the world. It will be very easy to make this comparison, as there is fufficient evidence what the tenets of the ancient philofophers were,

many

[ocr errors]

many of their own writings being now extant, as well as the scriptures of the Old and New Teftament.

1. It was a fundamental maxim with all the philofophers of antiquity, that creation from nothing was abfolutely impoffible; and many of those who admitted a principle of intelligence in the universe, maintained that matter in fome confufed chaotic mafs was another principle, coeternal with it, and independent of it, and therefore could only be modified, but not destroyed by it. Mofes, on the contrary, afferts a proper creation of every thing that exists, antecedent to the chaotic State which he describes. Gen. i. 1, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And fince the properties of bodies are all that we know of them, the appointment and changing of thefe, which the philofophers admitted to be within the province of the intelligent principle, implies a power of proper creation, and proper deftruction. For if we take away all the properties of any thing, nothing will be left. The fyftem of Mofes, therefore, is more rational than theirs. This, however, conti

* nued

nued to be the doctrine of the Greek philofophers to the latest period of their history. Plato held that matter exifted coeternally with God. Alfo, according to Zeno, the founder of the ftoical philofophy, "there existed from "all eternity a dark and confused chaos, in "which were contained the principles of all "future beings."

2. Another fet of philofophers, and perhaps of greater antiquity than the other, equally maintaining that creation from nothing was impoffible, maintained that every thing was originally emitted from the fubftance of the felf-existent and fupreme Being. And not only did they fuppofe that intelligent beings of all orders proceeded from him, by this mode of emanation, as rays of light from the fun; but that other fubftances of an inferior nature proceeding in the fame manner from them, at laft matter itself, the most remote from the divine effence, came into existence, and therefore that this fubftance, of which they speak with the greatest contempt, had its origin from the divine effence. This was the fyftem of the Oriental philofophy, which is ftill found in Indoftan, and other parts of the Eaft, and from them was derived the doc

trine of the Gnoftics, by which Christianity was corrupted in the time of the apostles. I need not fay how far this notion of the derivation of every thing from the substance of the divine Being, deviates from reafon. There is certainly nothing fo wild and abfurd as this in the writings of Mofes, who always fuppofes God to have created all things, but not by the projection of them from his own effence.

The fame clafs of philofophers, who held that every thing had been produced from the fubftance of the Supreme Being, also supposed that, after a certain period, they would be abforbed into it again; and, as originally nothing had existed besides this felf-existent being, he would again exift alone; but that after another period, other beings would be again produced from him, and that these fucceffive revolutions would go on for ever. This ever has been, and ftill is, the established doctrine in the East, and it was adopted by fome of the Grecian philofophers, especially the Stoics, who faid that "the world, including "the whole compafs of nature, both God “and matter, had subsisted from all eternity, "and would for ever fubfift; but that the

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

66

ning, and would have an end, from the al"ternate prevalence of moisture and dryness;

that when the former prevails, all things "are deftroyed by an inundation, and when "the latter prevails, by a conflagration; that, "however, from both of these catastrophes.

66

every thing will again emerge, by the ener66 gy of an efficient principle, when all the "forms of regular nature will be renewed, but "to be again diffolved, and again renewed, in "an endless fucceffion."

This fcheme excludes all idea of melioration. For according to it, every thing has been, and in all future revolutions ever will be, just what it now is. Accordingly Seneca fays, that " many persons would reject this "restoration of being, were it not that this "restoration will be accompanied with a total "oblivion of paft events." How far less rational, as well as lefs pleafing, is this fyftem, than that of the fcriptures, which supposes a conftant tendency to a better state of things, every rational being retaining his feparate consciousness, always diftinct from the Supreme Being, but making nearer approaches to him in perfection and happiness to all eternity. As to any proof, or evidence, of the truth of

« PreviousContinue »