power, by whose energy the elements | their true origin, and thence down to were separated, and bodies formed.

That the Persians maintained the doctrine of more than one Intelligence, or Mind, at the head of the Universe, is also well ascertained. They imagined, since good and evil are blended in the world, and nature produces nothing mixed, that there are therefore, in nature, two opposite powers counteracting each other's operations; the one accomplishing good designs, the other evil. That Orpheus and Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics, Pherecydes and Xenophenes, Democrites and Epicurus, all maintained nearly the same doctrine of the independent and eternal existence of Matter, is sufficiently known. And who needs to be told, that the last especially, has been rendered famous by the world which his own hands have framed from this eternal Chaos, which he conceived as consisting of an infinity of atoms?

their certain termination, can ever be said to answer this great object. For a system on which wisdom is so evidently impressed, however, we are not to look to those pretended sons of wisdom.

Is it not manifest, in all the systems of modern theorists, that they gratuitously assume a first fund of indeterminate Matter, which they suppose capable of entering into all sorts of conditions and compositions? Is it not under such a covert only, that their theories can subsist? Is it not in such an assumed principle alone, that the moderns, as well as the ancients, find materials on which to operate in the formation of their worlds?

Their systems being formed nearly on the same plan, they "attempt," as Enfield remarks on that of Epicurus, "to account for all the appearances of nature, upon the simple principle of matter and motion;" or rather, I may say, of the effects of fire and water, "without introducing the agency of a Supreme Intelligence." Grant only to a modern theorist fire, and water, and time, and other materials; and by the simple effect of such agents, without more ado, he will furnish you with the world in its present form. Matter, with its present properties, seems to be all that is necessary as pre-requisites to their various systems. in the use of this assumed material,

66

And

Such, in a general view, were the opinions of the ancients. And surely there is cause to fear that the moderns have drunk too deeply into the same spirit. Is it not vexatious to hear such an otherwise eminent philosopher as the late Professor Playfair, gravely telling us, "That in the economy of the world, there is no mark either of a beginning or an end?"* Nor is it less distressing to find others, in accounting for its origin, carrying us back almost to eternity itself; and from what they say of the uncertain nature They fail not," as M. de St. Pierre of the period they assign to its com- observes, "to interpret the sublime mencement, can we have any other operations of Nature, by the mechanidea than that it was lost in eternity, ism of the arts most familiar to them. and never had any specific beginning? Hence so many systems, which easily Thus does the present method of enable you to guess at the occupation philosophizing, throw a stumbling- of their authors. Epicurus, exhausted block in our way, of ever ascertaining by voluptuousness, formed his world the true origin and end of things. and his atoms, with which Providence And yet when man is viewed in the has nothing to do, out of his own light of a rational and an immortal apathy; the geometrician forms it being, what can be more important with his compasses; the chemist comthan that he should entertain right pounds it of salts; the mineralogist views of so interesting a subject? extracts it from fire; and they who The different theories, however, at pre-apply themselves to nothing, and these sent in vogue in the philosophical world, are not at all calculated to lead to such happy results, but rather to mislead mankind into all the errors of an unbounded scepticism. Nothing but a system which traces things up to

*Playfair's Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory, 118, 119,

are not few in number, suppose it, like themselves, in a state of chaos, and moving at random. Thus, the corruption of the heart is the origin and source of our errors."+

Being thus busily employed in con

+ St. Pierre's Studies of Nature, p. 41. Abridg. Eng.

structing his world, each man in his own way, no one allows himself leisure to inquire, How this Matter, of which they all avail themselves, came to exist? or to be endowed with those properties which alone render it capable of entering into its various formations and compositions? Or what may have been the original state of things, before a single effect in natural bodies, as they now occur, took place? Yet such inquiries lie, most undoubtedly, at the foundation of every rational system. Nay, without such inquiries, the commencement of any system must be involved in such a cloud of obscurity and darkness, as to afford no rational hope that the conclusion will be more lucid.

Let us therefore examine the renowned and bewitching doctrine of the eternal and pre-existent state of Matter. And first, I would ask, Is it a doctrine which is true, or false? Is it urged upon us by a train of self-evident principles? Or, is it the mere arbitrary hypothesis of such as say in their heart, There is no God? To the position, That Matter is eternal, selfexistent, and independent; or, that there were two eternal beings, or principles, an active and passive, a living and dead principle, or Mind and Matter, eternally, and distinctly, and independently of each other, existing; the following insuperable objections, in my view, oppose themselves.

1. If dead, inactive, and passive Matter, be eternal and independent of the active and living principle, whose existence is admitted on all hands, it seems to be impossible to shew upon what principle it could be brought so remarkably to accord with the plan of the universe, as to form, with another eternal and independent principle, which is of a nature directly its opposite, not two but one homogeneous and consistent whole. In the present plan of the universe, Matter is evidently susceptible of being modelled, and changed, and formed, into every conceivable state and condition; and is apparently as pliant and flexible, and as completely under the power and direction of that Intelligent Being who is supposed to have framed the universe, as if it had been a creature solely of his own production, and not a being equal with himself-self-existent, independent, eternal.

2. Nor will it in the least mend the

matter, to refer this to the passive nature of the one and the active nature of the other. Because, if the fact be really so, that the two principles are eternal and independent the one of the other,such a position, when admitted and traced to its ultimate bearings, seems to erect an eternal barrier to any collision, affinity, or amicable arrangement, ever taking place between them. The simple circumstance of their being two eternal and independent principles, renders it impossible that the one could ever have any influence on the other; but each possessing properties peculiar to itself, and eternally residing in itself, must eternally retain the same. And the one being active and the other passive, they must remain for ever in the same state; unless we could conceive,― either a positive and voluntary agreement respecting a change in their condition, or union to be formed between [them ;-a thing which is impossible, as the one is in that passive, inactive, and insensible condition which completely incapacitates it from ever entering into any terms of alliance or accommodation: or else, That the active principle, made hostile, advances upon the passive, and subdues and overcomes it;--a thing which is also impossible; for passive as it is, if it be only eternal and independent, it must remain for ever in the same state; seeing every consideration which can be alleged for its independent and eternal existence respecting the past, goes equally to confirm the same with respect to the future.

3. By the very hypothesis then, of two eternal and independent principles, we are bound to infer, that such state must regard eternity to come, as well as eternity past; and therefore, supposing the fact really to be such as the generality of the ancients and many of the moderns have asserted, we are unavoidably brought to the following conclusion-That so far would the existence of these two principles be from preparing the way for the production of the universe, that they would operate in a way the very reverse; namely, as a complete preventive to any thing of the kind ever taking place. As the two supposed principles are conceived to be distinct and independent from eternity past, so in like manner they must remain distinct and independent to eternity to come; and the present universe, or

any thing like it, arising from a junction | and move, and exist. Only, Revelaor collision of the two, seems, by every principle of right reasoning, to be a thing impossible.

This brings the subject within a narrower compass. It demonstrates that there must of course be only ONE ETERNAL EXISTENCE in the whole universe; that the nature of the thing will admit of no more; which eternal Existence is GOD, from whom all other existences, whether matter or mind, derive their being. For the accuracy of which conclusion, we appeal not merely to the declarations of His own word, but to the unity which subsists in nature; for from the unity of the operations of nature, is properly inferred the unity of the Source whence nature proceeded. Nor is there a truth in physics more clearly demonstrable than this.*

Granting, therefore, the maxims of the ancient sages, "That from nothing, nothing can proceed;-That if ever there had been a time when nothing existed, nothing could ever have existed," &c. to be true; the article we have just proved furnishes the most satisfactory reason for the truth of these maxims. It shews that there never was a period throughout the whole circle of eternity, in which the ETERNAL BEING HIMSELF did not exist; and that HE, therefore, was the nameless, the unknown, the self-existent Something, which their reasoning powers made them feel after, but which, alas! they did not find;t because they changed the truth concerning God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen.‡

But, while men of perverse minds thus thwart the truth of Scripture and Nature, how confirming to the Christian's faith is it, to behold both teaching the same thing! We have seen that Nature holds out to our view the existence of but One eternal Being, who is the origin and cause of all other existences; and with this fundamental truth in Nature, Revelation ⚫ agrees so exactly, as if it had been Icast in the same mould. They both teach the doctrine of but One eternal existence; and hold Him forth as that Being in whom all other beings live,

*See Paley's Natural Theology, on the Unity of God.

† Acts xvii. 23, 27.

tion advances a step further than Nature. It tells us how the worlds, consisting of Sun, Moon, Stars, and this Earth, with all that appertain to them, were framed or called into being by the word or command of God. Hence it is, that the things which now are seen, or visibly exist, were not made of things which did appear, or did exist before they were made. Then, then assuredly, as we have seen, nothing existed but the ETERNAL; but when he spoke the word, all things appeared. Existences of creatures then sprung up, because He willed it; and to the present day they are upheld by the same power.

"This account of the origin of things given by revelation," as it is observed by Dr. Macknight, "is very different from the cosmogony of the heathen philosophers, who generally held that the matter of which the worlds are composed is uncreated and eternal: consequently being independent of God, and not obedient to his will, they supposed it to be the occasion of all the evil that is in the world. But revelation, which teaches us that the things which are seen were not made of matter which did exist before they were made, but of matter which God then brought into existence, by thus establishing the sovereignty of God over matter, hath enlarged our ideas of his power, and strengthened our faith in his promises concerning the felicity of good men in the life to come. For the creation of the new heavens and new earth, and the glories of the city of the living God, do not to their formation require more power, than the creation of the present universe; and therefore, if we believe that the worlds were formed by the word of God from nothing, every other exercise of faith will be easy to us."

Thus we perceive, that sound reason and scripture on this head exactly agree: and by tracing them out, we have thus got over another difficulty which lay in our way, of accounting for the formation of the globe. We see from the nature of things, that it must have had a beginning, a beginning not merely as it respects the order and arrangement of its parts,

Rom. i. 25.

$ Macknight on the Epistles, Heb. xi. 3. Note 4. See also last Essay.

but as it respects the very materials of which it is composed. What remains now for us to do, is to inquire whether there be any principles in Nature, or well authenticated history, that will determine the period when the matter composing the universe was created? and what was its first general arrangement posterior to its creation?

If it be a truth, that Matter is not self-existent or eternal, then it is evident that it must have been produced by a superior power at some past period; and it is equally evident that it must have been brought into existence in some particular condition, and arranged in some specific order.

Our grand object therefore must be, to endeavour to ascertain these particulars; because, if they could be only established, they would form the pro- | per point whence to commence our geological investigations, as nothing can be traced higher than its source.

66

|

decide the great question,-Whether the LORD, by whose Spirit the scriptures were indited, be also the Former of the world, according to the true and unsophisticated account of His own blessed Word? Or, whether it was formed by some process altogether different from that account, and by consequence such as must sap the foundation of our holy religion?

Like the prophet of old, after allowing our theorists to put all things in order according to their own plan; to prepare the wood upon the altar for the burnt-offering; they must be called upon to bring down fire from heaven to consume it. In other words, after allowing them to account for the formation and present phenomena apparent in the structure of the earth, upon what principles soever they please; still, unless they adopt the scripture account of its formation and subsequent history, as the foundation of what they advance, it will be as impossible for them to make out a true, rational, satisfactory, and consistent system, that will tally with and account for all the phenomena, as it was for the priests of Baal to bring down fire from heaven.

It seems to be a strange and unaccountable liberty which some take with this subject, wantonly to leap over the first boundary of things; and to make a boast, as they do, of a glorious bursting of time in its anterior limits.' But if we would philosophize in a right manner, we must content ourselves with more humble attempts, and begin only where Nature begins. We must humbly follow, and not run before her. Neither must we confound in our conclusions, events and occurrences which must have happened not according to the ordinary course of things, but according to the instantaneous effects of Divine power, with such as do occur in an ordinary way.to the Creation and subsequent hisCould the line of distinction be here properly drawn, (and I think there is every reason to conclude that it may to a considerable degree,) the respective theories of Werner, Hutton, and Cavier, would undergo such a complete revolution, that I believe scarcely a vestige would remain of all the sublime things they have so shrewdly conjectured!

As, therefore, the great controversy between the Israelitish prophet and the idolatrous priests, was not agitated about a matter of little moment, but was intended to decide this most important of all questions, Whether Baal or Jehovah was God? even so here, our difference with these writers, does not turn upon any trivial point, but is to determine whether the simple scripture account of things relating

From all that we have hitherto advanced, it now comes to be evident, that the grand point of difference between us and the theoretical writers on Geology, celebrated on many accounts as some of them may be, resolves itself into a question similar to that of old between the prophet Elijah and the priests of Baal. It is to

tory of the Earth, does not better accord with the present phenomena, than the theories of these writers; which are so widely different from what the scripture teaches, that if they be right, the scriptures must be wrong.

Thus, it is Infidelity under a new form, so to speak, that we are engaged to canvass. And as the scriptures have stood the test, and have been proved, in opposition to all the other objections of gainsayers, to be the genuine production of the Spirit of the living God that cannot lie; so it is to be hoped, that in this particular also, they will commend themselves to the understanding heart, and consciences of men, when only allowed to