" 2. The theory which considers the matttr of tiie universe eternal, but not its form, was the prevmifiij one among the ancients, who, starting from the pric- ciple that out of nothing nothing could be made, eosM not admit the creation of matter, yet did not bdierv that the world had always been in its present stale. The prior state of the world, subject to a constant ssc- cesslon of uncertain movements, which chance after- wards made regular, they called ckaos. The PtKoi- cians, Babylonians, and also the Egyptians, seem to have adhered to this theory" (Hend. BucIe, s. t.). '*The Chaldean cosmogony, according to Berosoi when divested of allegory, seems to resolve itself into this: that darkness and water existed from etenutr; that Belus divided the humid mass, and gave birth to creation ; that the human mind is an emanation frtm the divine nature. The cosmogony of the SBdeot Persians is very clumsy. They introduce two etera&I principles, the one good, called Oromatdes, the other evU, called AHmtrntus; and they make these two pris- dples contend with each other in the creation and gor- emment of the world. Each has his province, whidi he strives to enlarge, and MUkras is the mediator te moderate their contentions. This is the most inaitifi- cial plan that has been devised to account for the ex* istence of evil, and has the least pretensions to a p]i3- osophical basis. The Egyptian cosmogony, accor^nii to the account given of it by Plutarch, seems to bear a strong resemblance to the Phoenician, as detailed by Sanchoniatho. According to the Egyptian acooeot, there was an eternal chaos, and an etenud spirit united with it, whose agency at last arranged the discerdsBt materials, and produced the viable system of the oii* verse. 'The cosmogony of the Northern nations, u may be collected from the Edda, supposes an et«rail
COSMOGONY
525
COSMOGONY
irinciple prior to the formation of the world. The Orphic Fragments state eveiything to have existed in 3od, and to proceed from him" (Watson, s. y. Crea- don). ** The ancient poets, who have handed down to OS the old niTthological traditions, represent the nni- rerse as springing from chaos without the assistance yt the Deity. Hesiod feigns that Chaos was the par- mt of Erebus and Kight, frt>m whose onion sprang the Air (Ai^rjp) and the Day. He further relates how the sky and the stars were separated from the earth, etc The system of atoms is mnch more fiunous. Leucippns and Democritus of Abdera were its invent- ors. The atoms, or indivisible particles, said they, existed from eternity, moving at hasard, and produ- chig, by their constant meeting, a variety of sub- stances. After having given rise to an immense va- riety of combinations, they produced the present or- ganization of bodies. This system of cosmogony was that of Epicurus, as described by Lucretius. Democ- ritus attributed to atoms form and size; Epicurus added weight. Many other systems have existed, which must be classed under tlds division. We only mention that of the Stoics, who admitted two princi- ples, God and matter— in the abstract, both corporeal, for they did not admit spiritual beings. The first was active, the second passive.
"8. The third theory of cosmogony attributes the origin of the world to a great spirituaJ cause or Crea- tor. This is the doctrine of the sacred Scriptures, in which it is taught with the greatest simplicity and beauty. From its being more or less held by the Etruscans, Magi, Druids, and Brahmins, it would seem to have fbund its way as a tradition from the regions in which it was possessed as a divine revelation. An- axagoras was the first who taught it among the Greeks, and it was to some extent adopted by the Romans, notwithstanding the eflfbrts of Lucretius to establish the doctrine of Epicurus" (Buck). Dr. Good, how- ever, shows that this view was fiir from general among even the most cultivated nations of antiquity, or, in- deed, unquestioned by early Christian writers (Book of Nature, p. 27). See Cobmolooy.
COSMOGONY, Mosaic, or the Biblical account of the origin of the world, especially as contained in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. The following is a dose translation of the first (Elohistic) or general account of the creation as given by Moses (Gen. i, 1- ii, 3). See Genesis.
At first God created the heavens and the earth ; but the earth was waflte and bare [(a scene of ruin)], and darkneis (va9] upon [the] &ce of the abyaa, while the Spirit of Ood [was] brooding upon [the] face of the waters. Then God said, *'Lek [there] he light!** and [there] was light; and God saw the lighi, that \M was] good : so God divided between the light and the darkness : and God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Niout. Thus [there] was evening, and [there] was morning— [the] first day.
Then God said, "Let [there] be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let Dt] be a divider between [the] waters [below it] aa to [the] waters [above it] :'* so God made the finnamentt and divided between the waters that [are] under- neath as to the firmament, and the waters that [are] overhead as to the firmament; for it was accordingly: and God called the flnnament HaAVSNS. Thus [there] was evening, and [there] was nKorning— [the] second day.