Chap. XIX. ANTIENT METAPHYSICS. 261 



the double way that Sir Ifaac fuppofes. If, Indeed, we could believe 

 that the principle of gravitation was eiTential to body, and inherent 



in 



the univerfe, did all proceed from one firfi: caufe. And this, 1 think, is enough to fatisfy 

 every Chriftian, as well as every I heiftical phiiofopher. I will only add here, that, not 

 only the Theiftical philofophers of antiquity, but alfo the Atheiftical, were of opinion, 

 that the univerfe was eternal ; for Epicurus, and his followers, maintained, that 

 their worlds had no beginning, but were from all eternity, one going down, and ano- 

 ther rifing up; and fo fucceeding one another, without end. For they believed that there 

 was an infinite number of worlds, each independent upon the other : Whereas, the 

 fchools of Plato and Ariflotle maintained that the univerfe was one fyflem, whereof all 

 the parts were conne£led, and dependent one upon another : but, as it was material 

 and all matter being, by its nature, liable to change and vicifTitude, they maintained 

 that the univerfe had fufFered in time paft, and would lufFer in time to come, great 

 changes ; fo that what we know has happened in our earth, they conceived had hap- 

 pened, and would happen in every part of the univerfe ; but flill the fyflem would be 

 preferved in the fame manner as the fyflem of an animal or vegetable bony is pre- 

 ferved, notwithflanding the conflant changes that it undergoes. And the only dif- 

 ference they made betwixt the two was, that, in the animal or vegetable, the changes 

 are much quicker ; whereas, in the univerfe, they are very much flower, and the fuc- 

 ceflive flates of it of infinitely longer duration. — Whoever is fliocked with this antient 

 notion of the eternity of the world, may read what the learned and pious Dr Clarke 

 has faid upon the fubjedl, in his Demonllratlon of the Being and Attributes of God 

 (P3ge35' 4th edit.) where he very fairly acknowledges it to he the opinion^of the antient 

 philofophers, and even of Plato, though, as I have obfervcd, that has been difputed • 

 and, like Dr Cudworth, lliows no abhorrence of it, nor thinks it at all irreconcile- 

 able to genuine Theifm. His words are, * That the followers of Plato maintained 



* that the creation of the world was not to be underflood a creation in fivie, but only 

 « in order of nature ^ caufality, and dependence ; that is, that the will of God, and his 



* power of ading, being necellarily as eternal as his elTence, the effeds of that will 



* arid power might be fuppcfed coeval to the will and power themfelves ; in the fame 

 ' manner zs light would eternally proceed from the////?, or tk fhado-w from the intcrpo^ 



* fed bodjy or an imprejjion from an impofed fcal^ if the refpedive caufes of thefe efTeds 



* were fuppofed eternal.' And, for thefe fimilitudes, he quotes antient authorities. 

 As fit a fimilitude, I think, may be taken from the definitions and axioms of fcicncc, 

 and the propofitions proved by them ; for thefe propofitions are tiuths as eternal as the 

 definitions and axioms, -which, however, are undoubtedly the caufe of their being true* 

 And hence it is, that they arc faid to be proved a priori, meaning, not priority in 

 time, tut a priority of cdujahty, as Dr Clarke cxprcfTes it. But, notwithflanding 

 theiie authorities and illuftrations, I would not be undcrflocd to afhrm any thing at 



prcfent 



