NOthing can be more evident, than that this visible frame which we call the World, was either from all eternity, or else that it had a beginning. And if it had a beginning, this must be either from Chance or from some wise Agent. Now if from clear Principles of Reason, it can be rendered more credible, that the world had a beginning, and that from some wise Agent, This may be another Argument to this purpose.
I cannot here omit the mention of a late Discourse, wherein this subject hath1 been so fully treated of, that I shall need to say the less of it, having little that is material to add to what is there delivered.
In the discussing of this, I shall purposely omit the mention of those arguments which relate to Infinity, as being not so easily intelligible, and therefore more apt to puzzle and amuse, than to convince. Let it be supposed, that each of the two Theories, whether about the Eternity of the World, or its having a Beginning, are not impossible, and that neither of them does imply a contradiction. And further, that neither of them can be infallibly demonstrated by the meer principles of Reason. In this case the question must be, which of them is most credible.
He that would rationally fix his opinion and belief about this matter, hath but these two kind of Proofs to enquire after.
-
Testimony, or the Tradition of the most Antient times.
-
Reason, or such Probabilities as do arise from the nature of the thing.
For the first of these Opinions, concerning the Eternity of the World, there is very little to be said from either of these.
-
As to Testimony. Aristotle, who was a great Patron of this Opinion, and held2 that the world was a necessary Emanation from God, as light is from the Sun; doth of himself acknowledg, that the Philosophers before him, were of opinion that the world had a beginning; which acknowledgment of his, is no small prejudice to the Autority of his opinion, as I shall shew afterwards. And then,
-
As to Reason, It is a meer precarious Hypothesis, having no sufficient argument that I know of, to render it probable.
But now for the other Opinion, namely, the beginning of the World, there are as fair and convincing proofs for it, of several kinds, as the nature of the thing is well capable of.
- From Tradition. If the world were made and had a beginning, it is but reasonable to expect, that so memorable a thing as this, should be recorded in some of the most ancient Histories; And that some extraordinary means should be used to perpetuate the memory of it, and to convey it down from one generation to another by Universal Tradition: And if it shall appear, that all the evidence of this kind is for this opinion, This must needs render it highly credible.
Now the History of Moses, hath been generally acknowledged, to be the most ancient Book in the world, and always esteemed of great Autority, even amongst those Heathens who do not believe it to be divinely inspired: And there is no man of learning, but must allow to it (at least) the ordinary credit of other ancient Histories; especially, if he consider what ground there is for the Credibility of it, from the Theology of the darker times, which is made up of some imperfect Traditions and allusions, relating to those particular stories which are more distinctly set down in the writings of Moses.
Now Moses doth give such a plain, brief, unaffected account of the Creation of the world, and of the most remarkable passages of the first ages, particularly of the plantation of the world by the dispersion of Noah’s Family, so agreeable to the most antient Remains of Heathen Writers, as must needs very much recommend it to the belief of every impartial man.
Though the Jews were but a small Nation, and confined to a narrow compass in the world; yet the first rise of Letters and Languages is truly to be ascribed to them. It is attested by several of the best and most Antient Heathen Writers, that the Hebrew Alphabet, or (which is all one) the Phaenician, is that from which both the Greek and the Latin, and consequently the generality of the rest now known, are derived, so Herodotus, Plutarch, Pliny, Curtius, Lucan, &c. From whence it may be probably infer’d, that the account given by the first Language, is the most ancient, and therefore the most likely to be a true Account of the first Original of things.
The usual course observed by all Nations to preserve the memory of things most remarkable, which might otherwise in tract of time be forgotten, especially amongst such as are not acquainted with Letters, hath been by some practical Institution, as by appointing some Festival for the Commemoration of such things. And thus likewise hath it been in the present case; The Sabbath (as Moses expresly tells us) was instituted for this very purpose, to keep up the memory of the Creation. And though perhaps it may be difficult to prove, that this day hath upon this Account been observed by any other Nation, but the Jews; yet the division of Time by Weeks, hath been universally observed in the world, not only amongst the Civiliz’d, but likewise amongst the most Barbarous Nations. And there being no foundation in nature for this kind of distribution of days, It must therefore depend upon some antient general Tradition, the original whereof, together with the particular reason of it, is preserv’d in the most ancient of all other Histories, viz. that of Moses.
As for the derivation of this from the seven Planets, whose names have been anciently assigned to them; this being well considered, will appear to be so far from invalidating what I now assert, that it will rather contribute to the Probability of it.
It is commonly believed, that the assignation of the names of the Planets to the days of the week, was by the Chaldeans, who were much devoted to Astrological devices, and had an opinion that every hour of the day was governed by a particular Planet, reckoning them according to their usual order, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sol, Venus, Mercury, Luna; That Planet which was ascribed to the first hour, giving name to the whole day; supposing Saturn to belong unto the first hour of Saturday, then the second hour will belong to Jupiter, the third to Mars, &c. and according to this order, the fifteenth hour will belong likewise to Saturn, and so will the twenty-second, the twenty-third to Jupiter, the twenty-fourth to Mars; and so the first hour of the next day must belong to Sol, which must accordingly give the denomination to that day; and so for the other days of the week.
Now if it may appear, that in this very account, which all sorts of Learned men do agree in, there is such a special regard to the Jewish Sabbath, or Seventh-day, as cannot be pretended for any other, This will still render it more credible, That the Tradition of the Sabbath did precede these Astrological Names. If we suppose these Astrologers to reckon from the first day of the Creation, and to begin with the most noble Planet the Sun; Then the Seventh-day will be Saturday, or the Jewish Sabbath: Or (which is more probable) if we suppose them to begin their computation, from the first day after the Creation was finished, and from the highest Planet, of slowest motion, and so more proper to signifie a day of rest; According to this way of Computation, there is a peculiar priviledg belongs to the Jewish Sabbath, which cannot be said of any of the other days.
The Testimony of greatest Antiquity next to the Books of Moses, must be sought for amongst those Ancient Nations, the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Phenicians, from whom the Grecians derived their Learning, and amongst whom the first and most famous Philosophers of Greece were wont to travel, for the improving of their knowledg; It being probable that some Memorials might be preserved amongst those ancient Nations, concerning the first beginning of things; and that they were acquainted with what was the Universal Tradition of the first Ages. Upon which account, those Grecian Philosophers before Aristotle, such as Thales, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, &c. who by their travel were conversant amongst these Nations, must by this advantage be more competent Judges than he was, concerning the general belief and opinion of former times, and what grounds they had for it.
Now it is well known to have been a general Tradition amongst these Nations, That the World was made, and had a beginning. And though there be some prodigious accounts amongst them, which may seem inconsistent with the Writings of Moses, as namely that of the Chaldeans, who reckon Forty-three thousand years from the beginning of the World to the Time of Alexander: yet this way of Computation is acknowledged by Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch, to be meant of Lunary years, or Months; which being reduced to Solary years, will fall out to be much about the time assigned by Moses for the Creation.
But besides these Testimonies of the Ancient Nations, and the first Grecian Philosophers who conversed amongst them; This hath been likewise believed and professed by the most eminent Writers since, Socrates, and Plato, and Tully, and Seneca, and the generality of the rest, whether Philosophers or Poets, of greatest repute for their Learning, who have asserted, That God was the Maker of the World.
There are several passages to this purpose amongst those ancient Greek Poets, Linus, Hesiod, Orpheus, Epicharmus, Aristophanes, which relate to the Creation of the World; and Ovid particularly, who fetched his matter from the Grecian Writers, doth give such a plain description of it, as if he had been acquainted with the Books of Moses; in those known Verses: Ante mare & terras, & quod tegit omnia coelum, &c.3
Nor hath it been thus only amongst the more civilized Nations; But the Barbarous Indians likewise have owned this Tradition, and professed the belief of it. Now it is not easie to imagine, how any such Tradition could arise so early, and spread so universally, if there were not a real ground for it.
As for the Arguments from Reason, I would offer these things to consideration:
-
If the World had been either without a beginning, or else very old, much older than the time assigned for it in the History of Moses; ‘Tis not likely, but there should be some kind of Memorials of those former Ages, or some real Evidence that there had been such. Quis dubitet, quin4 Mundus recens ac novus sit, cum Historia Graeca, bis mille annorum historiam vix contineat? saith Macrobius. The World cannot be very old, because the Grecian History doth scarce extend to Two thousand years. This was that which convinced Lucretius, that the World could not be Eternal, Because there were such obscure footsteps or reliques in any credible story, either amongst the Grecians or Romans, concerning any Persons that lived, or any considerable Action that was done, much before the Trojan Wars.
-
The first rise and progress of Arts and Sciences in the world, may likewise afford another fair probability to this purpose. Seneca asserts, that there was not above a thousand years since the beginning of Arts and Sciences, to the time wherein he lived. There is scarce any one of them so Ancient, but that the Original and first Inventors of them are recorded in Story. Nor is there any Nation in the world, now accounted Civil, but within the memory of Books, were utterly rude and barbarous. Now it is not imaginable, that so sagacious, so busie a Creature as Mankind is, could all of them have lived an infinity of Ages, destitute of those Arts, so advantageous for the comfort and benefit of human life, without some successful attempts for the supplying of their wants by them.
If it be said, That it is possible there might have hapned many general Inundations, by which former Inventions might be lost and forgotten, and such a kind of simplicity introduced into the world, as is proper to the first and ruder Ages of it. To this, I have shewed before, That a meer possibility to the contrary, can by no means hinder a thing from being highly Credible. To which I shall presently add something further.
- If the World had been eternal, How comes it to pass, that it is not every-where inhabited and cultivated? How is it, that very probably a considerable part of it is yet unknown? It is not yet two hundred years since, that one half of that which is now known lay undiscovered. Whereas if we judg of its beginning by the present Plantations and fulness of it, according to those proportions wherein men and families are now multiplied, allowing for such kind of Devastations, by War, Famine, Pestilence, Inundations, as are recorded in Credible Story to have hapned in former times; I say according to this, it will appear highly credible, that the beginning of the world was much about the time mentioned by Moses for the Creation of it; whereas had it been Eternal, it must long ere this have been over-stocked, and become too narrow for the Inhabitants, though we should suppose the addition but of one man every year. Nay, though we suppose but the addition of one man for every thousand years, yet long before this time there should have been a far greater number than there could be sands in the earth, though the whole Globe were made up of nothing else.
If it be said, That there may have been great checks given to the encrease of mankind by Wars, Famines, Pestilences, and Inundations.
To this it may be replied, That either these extraordinary devastations of mankind, must fall out regularly, so as not to be too much or too little; and in this case, they must be ordered by some Wise Agent, which is God; or else they must be purely Casual; And then it is by no means credible, but that the world must long ere this have been wholly wasted, and left desolate of Inhabitants, or else frequently too much replenished.
But the most plausible shift against the force of this argument, is fetched from the instance of Noah’s Flood, by which the whole world was destroyed, excepting one Family. The like whereto may frequently have hapned before, when perhaps one only Family did escape, and those such ignorant persons, as could give no true account of what was before.
But neither will this shift serve the turn. Because no man can give any rational account, how ‘tis possible that such a general Flood should come, by any natural means. And if it be supernatural, that grants the thing I am proving, namely such a Supreme Being as can alter the course of nature? But let it be supposed natural, How comes it to pass that so much as one Family doth escape. Such kind of Deluges, as must prevent the over-stocking of the world, must be necessary once every ten or twenty thousand years. And there must have happened many millions of them, from all eternity. And who shall take care for the adjudging of them to their proper season? or for preventing the total destruction of mankind? Though we should grant this possible casualty, yet he who can believe that to be a probable casualty which hath never come to pass in an eternal duration, must not pretend to be an enemy to Credulity.
By what hath been said it may appear, that there is a very great advantage in the proofs for this opinion, concerning the beginning of the world, above the other for the Eternity of it.
Now for the Difficulties on each side: Those relating to the Eternity of the world, have been already discussed, in the proofs I have lately insisted upon. And as for the Opinion, concerning the Creation of it, the chief difficulty which Aristotle doth mention, is from that Principle of his, Ex nihilo nihil fit, which is generally acknowledged to be true concerning natural Generations, but must not necessarily be extended to supernatural productions. It is one of the natural notions belonging to the Supreme Being, to conceive of him that he is Omnipotent. And it is very reasonable for us to believe, that our finite understandings cannot comprehend the utmost extent of Omnipotence. And though the making of something out of nothing do argue an inconceivable power, yet there is no contradiction in it. And if such things must be denyed which our reasons cannot comprehend, we must then deny that any thing can be self-existent, which yet is and must be supposed, on both sides; It being altogether as difficult for us to conceive, how any thing should be of it self, as how any thing should be made of nothing. So that this difficulty is not sufficient to overthrow this opinion, and withal it doth extend equally to both sides.
So then if it do appear, that betwixt these two opinions the least and fewest difficulties do lye, on that side which hath the plainest and strongest proofs, There is no question to be made, which way every impartial man will determine his opinion.
I do not pretend that these Arguments are Demonstrations, of which the nature of this thing is not capable: But they are such strong probabilities, as ought to prevail with all those, who are not able to produce greater probabilities to the contrary.
As for that other Opinion, concerning Epicurus his Atoms, It is so extravagant and irrational, and hath been so abundantly confuted by others, that I cannot think it expedient to spend any time in the discussing of it.
← Book 1, Chapter 4. Concerning the Existence of a Deity, and the Arguments for · Contents · Book 1, Chapter 6. 3. Arg. From the admirable contrivance of Natural things →