Part. I. in /^^ C r e a t i o n. 35 



which it is carried, why it fhould not move di- 

 redlly ; neither is there any Change made in the 

 Atom it felf, that it fliould not retain the Mo^ 

 tion natural to it, by Force of its Weight or 

 Gravity. 



As for the whole Atoinical Hypothefis^ either 

 Epicurean or Democritick^ I fliall not, nor need 

 I, fpend Time to confute it 3 this having been 

 already folidly and fufficiently done by many 

 learned Men, but efpecially Dr. Cudworth^ m 

 his IntelleBual Syjiem of the Univerfe, and the 

 late Bifhop of Worcejler^ Dr. Stillingjleet^ ia 

 his Oiigines Sacra, Only I cannot omit the C/- 

 ceronian Confutation thereof, which I find in 

 the Place firft quoted, and in the firft and fecond 

 Books De Naturd Deorum^ becaufe it may ferve 

 as a general Introdudion to the following Par- 

 ticulars. Such a turbulent ConcouFfe of Atoms 

 could never, (faith he) hu?7c mundi ornatum effL- 

 cere^ compofe fo w^ell-order'd and beautiful a 

 Strudure as the IVorld-, which therefore both 

 in Greek and Latin hath from thence \ab ornatti 

 & munditie] obtain'd its Name. And again 

 mod fully and appofitely in his fecond De Nat, 

 Deorum : If the W oiks oi Nature are better, more 

 exad and perfed, than the Works oi Arty 2indi Art 

 effeds nothing without Reafon, neither can the 

 Works of Nature be thought to be efifeded with- 

 out Reafon; for, is it not abfurd and incon- 

 gruous, .that when thou beholdeft a Statue or 

 curious Pidure, thou fliould'ft acknowledge that 

 Art was us'd to the making of it ; or when thou 

 feed the Courfe of a Ship upon the Waters, thou 



D 2 ^ fliouldft 



