ty feem'd to confift, or at leaft was bottomed upon the The Parti- Truth of thefe Particulars. 1. The Account of the Crea culars of tion which Mofes gives us. the Confe2. The Fall of Man prefently after that Creation. 3. His Redemption from the Calamities of that Fall, by Jefus Chrift. And Laftly, The Truth of the Scripture upon whofe Authority all this refts. But if I have good reafon to believe, that the World was long before this pretended Creation, that there are a great many Contradictions and Improbabilities in Mofes's Relation of it that there is no Likelihood of fuch a Lapfe of Mankind, nor is there Need of any fuch Redemption, nor that the Books which are brought to prove all this, are of that Divine Authority they pretend to; you may then very well conclude, that I have fomething more to fay against your Religion, than fome few Flourifhes of Wit and gay Periods, which your Clergy would make you believe, is all that Men of my Perfuafion have to encounter it. Nay, I will add farther, if you can fatisfy me in thefe Particulars, and clear up thefe Difficulties, I will profefs Chriftianity to Morrow; for it is not my Vices, but my Objections, as I told you, which hinder me from joining Communion with you; and I do not know but that I may live as virtuoufly and honeftly as thofe who go fo gravely to Church, with black Caps and broad Bibles. And therefore if

you pleafe, Credentius, we will take a Walk in your Garden, and talk over a Point or two of this Subject; for the Weather is too hot, either to drink, or to stay within.

Cred. I did not think, Philologus, to entertain you after this philofophical Manner. But pray, Sir, how long have you been in Love with the Peripatum? I thought you were too much of Epicurus his Party, to take Example after Ariftotle's Sect. I fhould think fome other. jolly Philofopher were a more agreeable Pattern for you to take, than thofe ftingy Speculatifts, who give their Friends a Walk to fave their Wine. But if it is refolved that you and I must enter the Lifts of a Difputation this Evening, I think it will not be inconvenient to walk abroad; for if we fhall grow too warm there, we shall

have Air to cool us. And fo, Sir, at your Pleasure, I follow.

Phil. This delicate Walk of Orange Trees, Credentius, puts me in Mind of your Paradife, and confequently of the Mofaick Creation; which is the first Point which you and I must clear up. But I would not have you think that I find fault with this Account, because I am perfuaded with Epicurus, that the World was not made by God. For Epicurus was a Blockhead to entertain fuch a filly Thought as this; and no Man of common Senfe, that ever thought, could be of his Opinion. I am as impatient as you can be, at the Ridiculousness of his Philofophy for his Doctrine of the Eternity, the Weight and falling of Atoms, is but a Syftem of Nonfenfe. For those weighty Atoms of his would be always falling and falling through the infinite Space, and would never be able to meet together to frame a World; and one Atom could be no more able to join with another, than the Hind-wheel can overtake the foremost. And as for that wagirnλions, or Side-Motion, which was afterwards added, I look upon it to be but a pitiful Botch, to patch up this foolish Hypothefis. I am fully fatisfied that the World had its Origin from a wife or powerful Being, the firft Caufe of all things, from whofe eternal Womb all things have fprung up, and whofe Power and Goodness ftill preferves the World in the fame State in which it always was. So that I efpy two principal Faults in the Account of the Mofaick Creation. The first is, Becanfe be gives the World too late a Being, it having a Sub-TheGround fiftence infinite Ages before he says it had; the fecond is, of Theifm, That fuppofing the World was created in Time, and at the Time he fuppofes, his Account is fo extravagant, that it cannot fatisfy any reasonable Man. And these two Points in the firft Place, I think I fhall be able to make out.

Cred. Well! Sir, I fee you have ranged your Exceptions very methodically: You are refolved to find me. Work enough before you have done; for thefe Heads, I prefume, are teeming with an Abundance of Objections, fo that you will make me run through a Body of Divinity

before

before I have anfwered them all. For my Part I must maintain the Grounds of Chriftianity as well as I can, and I am forry it is like to fuffer fo much by fo ill a Defender. But God be thanked I have a good Caufe to fet against your Wit and Parts; for I take every Thing which can be faid against our Religion, to be fo inconfiderable, that very weak Parts, and a flender Stock of Learning, will be able to encounter the most doughty Arguments which can be urged against it. And therefore will you be pleased to proceed upon your first Head.

Of the Eternity of the World.

Phil. Why, Sir, the firft Thing I have to fay against the Hiftory of the Creation, as it is related by Mofes, is, that he makes the World to begin but between five and fix Thousand years ago, when it is demonftrable it has continued from all Eternity. And this has been the Doctrine of the wifeft Philofophers heretofore. For to omit Ariftotle and others of later Date, I find Ocellus Lucanus*, who was almost co-temporary with Mofes, if not before him, to have been of this Opinion; and he is fo admirable a Philofopher, that in a Question of this Naturę, I would take his Word before that of the Jewish Lawgiver. But his Book of the Nature of the Universe, which is ftill extant, gives us fo many demonftrative Arguments of the Truth of this Opinion, that we need go no farther than that excellent Treatife to confute the History of the Creation.

Cred. But before you proceed, give me Leave to remind you of a very great Errour, in afferting, that Ocellus, the Author of that Treatife, was precedent, or any thing nigh Co-temporary with Mofes. But fuppofing that Treatife to be wrote by Ocellus Lucanus, that ancient Pythagorean, there was no lefs than eleven hundred Years Diftance between his Writing and Mofes's. For fay that Mofes wrote ten Years after the Ifraelites coming out of Egypt, which was An. Mundi, 2470. the Book of the

Creation will then be wrote An. Mundi, 2480; but I will make it appear that Ocellus Lucanus, wrote but much about the Year of the World 3580. which is eleven hundred Years later. Now Ocellus Lucanus lived much about the Time when Plato wrote, or perhaps a little before, being both Co-temporaries, but Ocellus the elder Man. For Plato's School was in its most flourishing Condition in the 102 Olympiad, when he was about fifty Years old, but he was born (as Laertius informs us from Apollodorus's Chronicks) in the 88th Olympiad (i. e.) about An. Mundi, 3525; and it is as plain that Ocellus lived much about the fame Time. For Laertins in the Life of Archy tas gives us two Letters between Archytas and Plato, about Ocellus, who was lately dead: "Wherein Archytas tells

Plato, that he had undertook the Bufinefs of Publish"ing fome pofthumous Pieces of Ocellus, and upon that "Account had been with the Family of the Lucani, and

he

particularly with Ocellus's Grand-children, and had "obtained the Papers of them, viz. his Book of Laws, "of Monarchy, of Sanctity, of the Generation of the Univerfe; and adds, that he will fend the other Pieces to "him as foon as they fhould be found." To which Plato anfwers, That this was a very acceptable Present, that very much admired the Writer, and that he was worthy of that most ancient Descent from the Trojans. Now if Ocellus were fo ancient a Writer as Mofes, how fhould Plato never have feen his Books before? How should it come into his Head to put Archytas upon Search after Books, which were wrote eleven hundred Years before? Or how could they be fuppofed to have lain dormant in the Family for fo many Ages? If he had been as old as Mofes, Plato would never have mentioned his moft ancient Defcent from the Trojans; for Mofes lived long before thofe Trojan Ancestors were born. But the Letter is exprefs that Archytas had this Book from his Grand-children, which were probably his Heirs, and who had the Right of difpofing of his Papers when he was Dead. So that it apDiog. Laert. Vit. Plat.

pears

pears that this Ocellus was fo far from being a Writer, as old as Mofes, that he was but a late Gracian Writer. For not to mention Orpheus, Homer, and Hefiod, who lived fix or feven Centuries before; moft of the Greek Books which are most commonly read, were much ancienter than this Author. All the celebrated Dramatical Poets, AriBophanes, Afchylus, Euripides, Sophocles; all the Lyrick ones, Stefichorus, Alcaus, Pindar, Sappho, Simonides, Anacreon; and other moral Poets ancienter than thefe, Tyrtaus, Theognis, Phocylides; befides the famous Hiftorians Herodotus and Thucydides. But in Respect of the Jewish Books he was but a Writer of Yefterday; for he was fo far from being able to vie with Mofes for Antiquity, that the very laft Writer of the Old Teftament wrote before him: for the Canon was completed, and the Prophecies fealed up in Malachi, who wrote almoft forty Years before this Writer. For Malachi flourished in the firft Year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Ocellus not till about the 35th. So that we have proved not only Mofes, but the whole Bible, to be ancienter than this old Writer.

But after all, I believe I can make it appear, that this Book, which you mention, is not fo ancient as the Author it lays claim to; but was compofed by fome Modern in Imitation of that ancient Piece of Ocellus's which Archytas in his Letter mentions. For there are fome manifest Marks which make it appear, that it is a Piece of much later Date than Ocellus Lucanus: 1. For it is known to all that the ancient Pythagoreans wrote always in the Dorick Dialect, as appears by the Works or Fragments yet exftant of Timaus, Locrus, &c. But this Treatife is wrote in common Greek; nay it is evident, that * Ocellus himself wrote in Dorick, as does appear from what is quoted from him by Stobaus in his Eclogues; viz. a Fragment out of his Book of Laws, which Archytas fays he wrote. In which Fragment, ψυχά, οίκος, Όνομα, τὴν αὐτὴν, &c. fhews plainly the Dialect in which this Author wrote. 2dly, We may obferve that the Author of this piece was

Stob. Ecl. Phyf. Lib. 1. Cap. 16.