Footnotes
1. עשוז, ברא κτιζειν, ποιειν, γινεσθαι.
2. Of this opinion was Aristotle, and his followers; though he acknowledges, that it was contrary to the sentiments of all the philosophers that were before him, Vid. Arist. de Cœlo, Lib. I. cap. 2 who, speaking concerning the creation of the world, says, γενομενον μεν ουν απαντες ειναι φασιν.
3. Tertull. adv. Hermog. cap. 8. Hæreticorum Patriarchæ Philosophi; which was so memorable a passage, that it was quoted, upon the same occasion, by Jerom, and others of the fathers.
4. This was maintained by Aquinas, Durandus, Cajetan, and others; though opposed by Albertus Magnus, Bonaventure, &c.
5. Thus Augustin, speaking concerning the years from the time of the creation to his time, reckons them to be not full, that is, almost six thousand years; whereas in reality, it was but about four thousand four hundred, herein being imposed on by this translation. Vid. Aug. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XII. Cap. 10.
6. Every one, that observes the lxx. translation in their chronological account of the lives of the patriarchs, from Adam to Abraham, in Gen. chap. v. compared with chap. xi. will find, that there are so many years added therein to the account of the lives of several there mentioned, as will make the sum total, from the creation of the world to the call of Abraham, to be between fourteen and fifteen hundred years more than the account which we have thereof in the Hebrew text; which I rather choose to call a mistake, in that translation, than to attempt to defend it; though some, who have paid too great a deference to it, have thought that the Hebrew text was corrupted, after our Saviour’s time, by the Jews by leaving out those years which the lxx. have added, designing hereby to make the world believe that the Messiah was not to come so soon as he did, by fourteen or fifteen hundred years; and that therefore the Hebrew text, in those places, is to be corrected by that version; which I cannot but conclude to be a very injurious insinuation, as well as not supported by any argument that has the least probability in it.
7. Vid. Pomp. Mel. Lib. I. Cap. 9. who speaks of the annals of the kings of Egypt, as containing above thirteen thousand years; and others extend the antiquity of that nation many thousand years more. Vid. Diod. Sicul. Biblioth. Lib. I.
8. Vid. Cicero de Divinat. Lib. I. who condemns the Egyptians and Babylonians, as foolish, vain, yea impudent, in their accounts relating to this matter, when they speak, as some of them do, of things done four hundred and seventy thousand years before; upon which occasion, Lactantius, in Lib. 7. § 14. de Vita beata, passes this just censure upon them, Quia se posse argui non putabant, liberum sibi crediderunt esse mentiri; and Macrob. in somn. Scip. cap. 11. supposes that they did not measure their years as we do, by the annual revolution of the sun, but by the moon; and so a year, according to them, was no more than a month, which he supposes Virgil was apprised of, when he calls the common solar year, Annus Magnus, as compared with those short ones that were measured by the monthly revolution of the moon: but this will not bring the Egyptians and Chaldean accounts to a just number of years, but some of them would, notwithstanding, exceed the time that the world has stood. As for the Chinese, they have no authentic histories that give any account of this matter; but all depends upon uncertain tradition, transmitted to them by those who are their leaders in religious matters, and reported by travellers who have received these accounts from them, which, therefore, are far from deserving any credit in the world.
9. The reader will be highly gratified by a treatise of Dr. Hugh Williamson on climate, wherein he examines this subject.
10. The common distribution of time, into that which is αδηλον, before the flood, and μυθικον, after it, till they computed by the Olympiads; and afterwards that which they call ἱστορικον the only account to be depended upon, makes this matter farther evident.
11. See this argument farther improved, by those who have insisted on the first inventors of things; as Polydor. Virgil. de Rerum inventoribus; and Plin. Secund. Hist. Mundi. Lib. VII. cap. 56.-60. and Clem. Alex. Strom. Lib. I. Lucretius, though an assertor of the eternity of matter and motion, from his master Epicurus, yet proves, that the world, as to its present form, had a beginning; and what he says is so much to our present argument, that I cannot but mention it. Vid. Lucret. de Rer. Nat. Lib. V.
Prætera si nulla fuit genitalis origo Terrarum & Cœli, semperq; æterna fuere;
Cur supra bellum Thebanum, & funera Trojæ,
Non alias alii quoque res cecinere Poetæ?
Quo tot facta virum toties cecidere? neque usquam
Æternis famæ monimentis insita florent?
Verum, ut opinor, habet novitatem Summa, recensq;
Natura est Mundi, neque pridem exordia cepit.
Quare etiam quædam nunc artes expoliuntur.
Nunc etiam augescunt; nunc addita navigiis sunt.
Multa: modo organici melicos peperere sonores.
Denique Natura hæc rerum, ratioque reperta est
Nuper.——
12. See Vol. I. Pages 220, 221.
13. See Ray’s Wisdom of God in the Creation, page 182.
14. Whitby on Election, page 92, 93.
15. See Turret. Elenct. Tom. I. Loc. 5. Quest. 5.
16. Vid. Witsii in Symbol. Exercit. 8. § 66.
17. This is the main thing that is advanced by Des Cartes, in his philosophy, which formerly obtained more in the world than it does at present; though there are several divines in the Netherlands, who still adhere to, and defend that hypothesis. This was thought a sufficient expedient to fence against the absurdities of Epicurus, and his followers, who suppose that things attained their respective forms by the fortuitous concourse of atoms; nevertheless, it is derogatory to the Creator’s glory, inasmuch as it sets aside his immediate efficiency in the production of things.
18. This absurd opinion the Papists are very fond of, inasmuch as it serves their purpose in defending the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
19. Ambrose, in his Hexameron, Lib. II. cap. 3. as well as Basil, and others, suppose, that the use thereof is to qualify the extraordinary heat of the sun, and other celestial bodies, to prevent their burning the frame of nature, and especially their destroying this lower world; and others think, that they are reserved in store, to answer some particular ends of providence, when God, at any time, designs to destroy the world by a deluge; and consequently they conclude, that it was by a supply of water from thence, that there was a sufficient quantity poured down, when the world was drowned, in the universal deluge: but, though a late ingenious writer, [Vid. Burnet. Tellur. Theor. Lib. I. cap. 2.] supposes, that the clouds could afford but a small part of that water, which was sufficient to answer that end, which he supposes to be eight times as much as the sea contains; yet he does not think fit to fetch a supply thereof from the super-celestial stores, not only as supposing the opinion to be ill-grounded, but by being at a loss to determine how these waters should be disposed of again, which could not be accounted for any other way, but by annihilation, since they could not be exhaled by the sun, or contained in the clouds, by reason of their distant situation, as being far above them.
20. It is not על תקיע, but מעל לרקיע.
22. Thus the learned Witsius, in Symbol. Exercitat. 8. § 78. exposes this notion, by referring to a particular relation given, by one, of mountains, vallies, seas, woods, and vast tracts of land, which are contained in the moon, and a describing the men that inhabit it, and the cities that are built by them, and other things relating hereunto, which cannot be reckoned, in the opinion of sober men, any other than fabulous and romantic.
23. This, supposing the fowl to be produced out of the water, mixed with earth, reconciles the seeming contradiction that there is between Gen. i, 20. and chap. ii. 19. in the former of which it is said, the fowl were created out of the water, and in the latter, out of the earth.
25. When we speak of the season of the year, we have a particular respect to that part of the earth, in which man at first resided; being sensible that the seasons of the year vary, according to the different situation of the earth.
——Ver illud erat, Ver magnus agebat
Orbis, & Hybernis parcebant flatibus Euri.
Virg. Georg. 2.
27. Vid. Augustin. de Civ. Dei, Lib. XV. cap. 23. Tertull. de Idololatria, & alibi passim.
28. This was the opinion of Aristotle, though he does not call them angels, but intelligent Beings, for angel is a character belonging to them, derived only from scripture; neither do we find that this work is assigned to them, as a part of their ministry therein.
30. It is strenuously maintained, by Baronius, Bellarmine, and many other writers; as also by many of the schoolmen, as Durandus, Tho. Aquinas, and others.
31. This book is sufficiently proved to be spurious, and not to have been known in the four or five first ages of the church, as not being mentioned by Jerom, Gennadius, and others, who make mention of the writers of their own and former ages, and pass their censures on them, as genuine or spurious. And, from others of the Fathers, who lived in those centuries, it plainly appears, that the doctrines maintained in this book, concerning the celestial hierarchy, were not then known by the church. It is also proved to be spurious, because the author thereof makes mention of holy places, such as temples, altars, &c. for divine worship, and catechumens, and the like, and many other things, unknown to the church till the fourth century; and he uses the word Hypostases to signify the divine Persons, which was not used till then. He also speaks of the institution of monks, and various sorts of them, which were not known till long after the apostolic age; yea, he quotes a passage out of Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived in the third century. These, and many other arguments, to the same purpose, are maintained, not only by Protestants, but some impartial Popish writers, which sufficiently prove it spurious. See Dallæus De Scrip. Dionys. Areop. and Du Pin’s history of ecclesiastical writers, Cent. 1. Page 32-34.
33. This book, which is called, Systema Theologicum, in which this matter is pretended to be defended, was published by one Peirerius, about the middle of the last century; and, being written in Latin, was read by a great many of the learned world: And, inasmuch as the sense of many scriptures is strained by him to defend it, and hereby contempt was cast upon scripture in general, and occasion given to many, who are so disposed, to reproach and burlesque it; therefore some have thought it worth their while to take notice of, and confute this new doctrine; after which, the author thereof, either being convinced of his error thereby, as some suppose, or being afraid lest he should suffer persecution for it, recanted his opinion, and turned Papist.
34. See Ray’s wisdom of God, in the work of creation, Part. II. and Derham’s Physico. Theology, Book V.
35. The Origin of the soul, at what time it enters into the body, whether it be immediately created at its entrance into the body, or comes out of a pre-existent state, are things that cannot be known from any fitness or reasonableness founded in the nature of things; and yet it is as necessary to believe this is done according to certain reasons of wisdom and goodness, as to believe there is a God.
Now, who can say that it is the same thing, whether human souls are created immediately for human bodies, or whether they come into them out of some pre-existent state? For aught we know, one of these ways may be exceeding fit and wise, and the other as entirely unjust and unreasonable; and yet, when Reason examines either of these ways, it finds itself equally perplexed with difficulties, and knows not which to chuse: but if souls be immaterial [as all philosophy now proves] it must be one of them.
And perhaps, the reason why God has revealed so little of these matters in holy Scripture itself, is, because any more particular revelation of them, would but have perplexed us with greater difficulties, as not having capacities or ideas to comprehend such things. For, as all our natural knowledge is confined to ideas borrowed from experience, and the use of our senses about human things; as Revelation can only teach us things that have some likeness to what we already know; as our notions of equity and justice are very limited, and confined to certain actions between man and man; so, if God had revealed to us more particularly, the origin of our souls, and the reason of their state in human bodies, we might perhaps have been exposed to greater difficulties by such knowledge, and been less able to vindicate the justice and goodness of God, than we are by our present ignorance. HUMAN REASON.
37. It was denied, indeed, by the Epicureans, who were detested by the better sort of heathen, and reckoned the Libertines of the respective ages, in which they lived; and, though they may occasionally speak of a God, yet were deemed no better than Atheists. Diogenes Laertius [Vid. in Vit. Epicuri, Lib. X.] in the close of the life of Epicurus, gives a brief account of his sentiments about religion, which he lays down in several short Aphorisms; the first of which begins with this memorable passage, Το μακαριον και αφθαρτον ουτε αυτο πραγματα εχει ουτε αλλω παρεχει, Quod beatum & immortale est neque ipsum negotia habet, neque alii præbet; which expression some of the wiser heathen have taken just offence at. And accordingly Cicero, [Vid. ejusd. Lib. I. De Nat. Deor.] referring to this passage, says, that whatever veneration Epicurus pretended to have for the gods, yet he was no better than an Atheist, and brought a god into his philosophy, that he might not fall under the displeasure of the senate at Athens: thus he says, Novi ego Epicureos omnia Sigilla venerantes; quanquam video nonnullis videri Epicurum, ne in offensionem Atheniensium caderet, verbis reliquisse Deos, resustulisse: And Lactantius observes the same thing concerning him, and describes him as a deceiver and a hypocrite, Hic vero si aliud sensit, & aliud locutus est; quid aliud appellandus est, quam deceptor, bilinguis, malus, & propterea stultus? Vid. Lactant. de Ira Dei, Cap. 4. And as for the Poets, it was only the most vain among them, who gave countenance to immorality, and endeavoured to debauch the age in which they lived, that gave out this notion; and, in our age, this seems to be one of the first principles of Deism.
38. Vide ante. Vol. I. p. 532, in note.
39. See Charnock, Flavell, Dr. Collings, on Providence.
40. Some think, that those expressions, which we find in scripture, that speak of the devil, and his angels, and the prince of devils, import as much; but this we pretend not to determine.
41. This was the opinion of most if the fathers, in the three first centuries of the church, namely, Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Lactantius, Irenæus, Cyprian, and others. Some of them appeared to have taken the hint thereof from some MS. of the LXX translation, which rendered the words in Gen. vi. 2. instead of the sons of God, the angels saw the daughters of men, &c. This translation being used by them, instead of the Hebrew text, which they did not well understand; though others took it from a spurious and fabulous writing, which they had in their hands, called Enoch, or, the prophecy of Enoch, or rather, Liber, παρα εγρηγορων, de Egregoris, a barbarous Greek word, used to signify angels, and taken from the character given them of watchers, in Daniel. Of this book, we have some fragments now remaining, in which there is such a ridiculous and fabulous account of this matter, as very much, herein exceeds the apocryphal history of Tobit. It gives an account of a conspiracy among the angels, relating to this matter; the manner of their entering into it, their names, the year of the world, and place in which this wickedness was committed, and other things, that are unworthy of a grave historian; and, the reckoning it among those writings, that are supposed to have a divine sanction, is little other than profaneness and blasphemy. Some of the fathers, who refer to this book, pretend it to be no other than apocryphal, and, had they counted it otherwise, all would have reckoned it a burlesque upon scripture; therefore Origen, who, on other occasions, seems to pay too great a deference to it, when Celsus takes notice of it, as containing a banter on the Christian religion, he is, on that occasion, obliged to reply to him, that book was not in great reputation in the church, Vid. Orig. contra Celsum, Lib. V. And Jerom reckons it among the apocryphal writings, Vid. Hieronym. in Catal. Script. Eccles. cap. 4. And Augustin calls it not only apocryphal, but, as it deserves, fabulous. Vid. ejusd. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XV. cap. 23.
42. Vide Dr. Wells’ Sacred Geography, and the excursions annexed to it.
45. If there had been a period in which there was absolutely no existence, there would never have been any thing. Either man, or his Creator, or one more remote, has been from eternity, unless we admit the contradiction of an eternal succession. But because to create implies power and wisdom, which we have not the least reason to imagine any creature can possess, either man, and the world he possesses, have always been, or their maker. The history of man, the structure of languages, the face of the ground, &c. shew that man and his habitation have not been from eternity; therefore God is eternal. As all excellency is in himself or derived from him, his happiness depends only on himself; and the worlds he has made, are so far pleasing as they exhibit himself to himself. He could have made his intelligent creatures all confirmed in holiness, but he chose to confer liberty, which was a blessing till abused. He knew all the consequences, and that these would exercise his mercy and justice. Partial evil he determined should produce universal good, and that no evil should take place, but that which should eventually praise him.
The first intelligent creatures were purely spiritual, and each stood or fell for himself. He united in man the spiritual and corporeal natures; he formed his soul innocent and holy, and made ample provision for the comfort of his body; and as it would have been inconvenient to have brought all of the human family, which were to be in every generation, upon the earth at one time, and still more so, that, every one standing or falling for himself, the earth should be the common habitation of beings perfectly holy, happy, and immortal, and also of cursed perishing beings, he constituted the first man a representative of his race. “Let us make man,” the race in one. To be fruitful, multiply, fill, and subdue the earth, were directed to the race. “In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die.” He did die spiritually, he lost his innocence, became the subject of guilt, shame, and fear; and all his posterity inherit the fallen nature. Being already cursed, when afterwards arraigned and sentenced, it was only necessary to curse his enjoyments in this world. His posterity were included, for they are subjected to the same afflictions and death. If they had not been included in the sentence “dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,” as they were a part of his dust, not dying, it would not have been accomplished. That he represented the race appears also from this, that the command was given to him before his wife was formed, and also because it does not appear that her eyes were opened to see her guilt, and miserable condition until he had eaten of the fruit; then “the eyes of them both were opened.”
The remedy was provided before the creation, and nothing can be shown to prove that it is not complete in every instance when there is not actual guilt. That the woman was to have a seed the first parent heard announced in the sentence against the tempter, whilst standing in suspense momently in expectation of that death which had been threatened. If the plural had been used, this could have been no intimation of the seed Christ. Why was the word woman used, which excludes the man, and not the term man, which would have embraced both, unless the Son of the virgin was intended? It is all one great whole, perfectly seen only to God himself. “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out.”
46. Vid. Grot. in Hos. vi. 7. Mihi latina hæc interpretatio non displicet, ut sensus hic sit; sicut Adam, quia pactum meum violavit, expulsus est ex Hedene; ita æquum est ex sua terra expelli.
47. When I speak of the advantages being, for substance the same, it is supposed, that there are some circumstances of glory, in which that salvation that was purchased by Christ, differs from that happiness which Adam would have been possessed of had he persisted in his integrity.
48. Yet it is the better opinion, that he was vulnerable only on one point.
49. The principal argument brought to prove this, is the application of that scripture, to this purpose, in Cant. viii. 5. I raised thee up under the apple tree; there thy mother brought thee forth, as if he should say, the church, when, fallen by our first parents eating the fruit of this tree, was raised up, when the Messiah was first promised. But, though this be a truth, yet whether it be the thing intended, by the Holy Ghost, in that scripture, is uncertain. As for the opinion of those who suppose it was a fig-tree, as Theodoret, [Vid. Quest, xxviii. in Gen.] and some other ancient writers; that has no other foundation, but what we read, concerning our first parents sewing fig leaves together, and making themselves aprons, which, they suppose, was done before they departed from the tree, their shame immediately suggesting the necessity thereof. But others think, that whatever tree it were, it certainly was not a fig-tree, because it can hardly be supposed but that our first parents, having a sense of guilt, as well as shame, would be afraid so much as to touch that tree, which had occasioned their ruin. Others conclude, that it was a vine, because our Saviour appointed that wine, which the vine produces, should be used, in commemorating his death, which removed the effects of that curse, which sin brought on the world: but this is a vain and trifling method of reasoning, and discovers what lengths some men run in their absurd glosses on scripture.
50. Vid. Joseph. Antiquit. Lib. I. cap. 2.
51. Vid. Socin. de Stat. Prim. Hom. & Smalc. de ver. & Nat. Dei. Fil.
52. This is beautifully described by Milton, (in his paradise lost, Book IX.) and many others have asserted the same thing for substance, as thinking it below the wisdom of the man to be imposed on; thereby insinuating, though without sufficient ground, that he had a greater degree of wisdom allotted to him than his wife.
53. Josephus indeed, (See Antiq. Lib. I. cap. 2.) intimates, that the serpent was, at first, endowed with speech, and that his loss of it was inflicted for his tempting man; but it is a groundless conjecture arising from a supposition, that those things spoken of in Gen. iii. which are attributed to the devil, were done without him, which is not only his opinion, but of many other Jewish writers, and several modern ones.
54. The words of the prohibition, in Gen. ii. 17. are, Ye shall surely die: whereas in the account she gives thereof to the serpent, her words are, פן תמתון which Onkelos, in his Targum, renders, Ne forte moriamini.
55. The command had been given to Adam: he was the representative of Eve and his posterity; accordingly, upon her eating, no change was discovered: but as soon as he ate, “the eyes of them both were opened.” They instantly felt a conscious loss of innocence, and they were ashamed of their condition.
This affection may have either good or evil as its exciting cause. The one species is praise-worthy, the other culpable. When there exists shame of evil, the honour of the party has been wounded.
Honour, the boast of the irreligious, is the vanguard of virtue, and is always set for her defence, while she is contented with her own station. But when honour assumes the authority, which belongs to conscience and reason, the man becomes an idolater. For conscience aims at God’s glory, honour at man’s; conscience leads to perfect integrity, whilst honour is contented with the reputation of it: the one makes us good, the other desires to become respectable. Conscience and religion will produce that, which honour aims at the name of. Honour without virtue, is mere hypocrisy.
But honour as ancillary to virtue, will detect and vanquish temptation, before virtue may apprehend danger: she is therefore to be regarded and fostered, but to be restrained within her own precincts.
Shame of good is rather an evidence of a want of honour, and springs from dastardly cowardice: it argues weak faith, superficial knowledge, and languid desires of good. Such knowledge and desires are barely enough to aggravate the guilt, and show it was deliberate.
The religious man must count upon opposition from a world hostile to holiness. His conduct and character will necessarily, by contrast, condemn those of the wicked. But he is neither to abandon his duty, but cause his light to shine; nor purposely afflict the sensibility of his enemies, but treat them with mildness and kindness. The demure and dejected countenance is to be avoided, not only because the Christian has a right to be cheerful, but because when voluntary, it is hypocritical; and because also it injures the cause by exciting disgust and contempt, and provoking persecution, where a mild and evenly deportment would command the respect and admiration even of the evil themselves.
Contempt and ridicule will come. But the Christian should know that this indicates defect in the authors of them. If religion were, as the infidel hopes it will prove, without foundation, to ridicule the conscientious man for his weakness, is rudeness, weakness, and want of generosity. If religion be doubtful, to ridicule it is to run the hazard of Divine resentment, and highly imprudent. If it be certain, it is to rush upon the bosses of God’s buckler, and the most horrid insolence.
Ridicule is no test of truth, for the greatest and most important truths may be subjected to wit; it is no index of strength of understanding; and wit and great knowledge almost never are found together. It indicates nothing noble or generous, but a little piddling genius, and contemptible pride.
He who yields to the shame of that which is good, weakens his powers of resistan