Chapter I: On the Creator of the World (1)

Distinguished by his name JEHOVAH -- His essence and
self-existence expressed by the words I AM -- His attribute
of goodness the glory of all his other perfections -- Elohim
signifying a Trinity of Persons in a Unity of Essence -- The
Creation ascribed to one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit -- The first production of matter -- The creatures made
for the manifesting of God’s attributes, and that he might
impart happiness to them.

As it is proposed, in the following pages to give the Mosaic account of the creation of the world, it is very natural that the mind should come to the meditation of this interesting subject, by contemplating the character of the Great Creator, according to his own revelations.

It is evident that God made himself gradually known, as the state and condition of mankind required. In the earlier ages of the world, while revelation was but dawning on the human race, he was but little known, in comparison of the subsequent diffusion of his glory and perfections. When he, according to his promise, came to deliver the children of Israel out of Egypt, he revealed himself to them by his name JEHOVAH. He had before declared himself by this name to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; but not as it imports the performance of his promises; in which sense, their posterity afterwards, in the time of Moses, well understood it.

Of all the names which the Divine Being has been pleased to designate himself by, that of JEHOVAH is the greatest. It comes from a root which imports his eternity, independency, efficacy, and truth. In the Hebrew it is written with four letters, י _yod_, ה _he_, ו _vau_, ה _he_, thus יהוה i.e. JHVH:[1] the points used in that language, make our English word consist of seven letters, J_e_H_o_V_a_H. God himself gives the interpretation of this name. “And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed יהוה YEHOVAH, the LORD GOD, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.” These different names have been considered as so many attributes of the Divine Nature. Commentators divide them into eleven, thus: 1. יהוה JEHOVAH. 2. אל EL, the strong or mighty God. 3. רחום RACHUM, the merciful Being, who is full of tenderness and compassion. 4. חנין CHANUN, the gracious One: He, whose nature is goodness itself--the loving God. 5. ארך פיםא EREC APAYIM, long-suffering, the Being who, because of his goodness and tenderness, is not easily irritated, but suffers long and is kind. 6. רב RAB, the great or mighty One. 7. חסד CHESED, the bountiful Being: He who is exuberant in his beneficence. 8. אמת EMETH, the Truth, or true One: He alone who can neither deceive nor be deceived--who is the Fountain of truth, and from whom all wisdom and knowledge must be derived. 9. חסד נצר NOTSER CHESED the preserver of bountifulness: He whose beneficence never ends, keeping mercy for thousands of generations--showing compassion and mercy while the world endures. 10. נשא עון ופשע וחטאה NOSE _âvon vapeshâ vechataah_: He who bears away iniquity and transgression and sin; properly the REDEEMER, the Pardoner, the Forgiver, the Being whose prerogative alone it is to forgive sin, and save the soul. נקה (לו) לא ינקה NAKEH _lo yinnakeh_, the righteous Judge, who distributes justice with an impartial hand; with whom no innocent person can ever be condemned. 11. And פקד עון PAKED _âvon_, &c. He who visits iniquity; he who punishes transgressors, and from whose justice no sinner can escape. The God of retributive and vindictive justice. These eleven attributes, as they have been termed, are all included in the name _Jehovah_; and are the proper interpretation of it.[2]

The Jews had a superstitious respect for this name; and, after the Babylonian captivity, discontinued the use of it, which caused them soon to forget its true pronunciation. They called it the _Tetragrammaton_, or four-lettered name of God, which, to the present day, the Jews will neither write nor pronounce. They deemed it to be ineffable; and therefore when it occurred in reading the Scriptures; substituted אדני _Adonai_.

The Jews tell us that the woman’s son, mentioned in Lev. xxxiv, 11, was accused of blasphemy and stoned to death, because he pronounced the name _Jehovah_. But I conceive, that he had spoken contemptuously of God. We read, verse 10, that he and a man of Israel strove together, and it is probable that the Israelite, in the heat of contention, would deny his being a member of the church of God, because he was the son of an Egyptian father who was an idolater; whereupon, no doubt, the son of the Israelitish woman spoke scornfully and opprobriously of the God of Israel, despising the privilege of being one of his people. This, I imagine, was the blasphemy of which he was accused, and for which he was condemned and stoned to death; and not for pronouncing the name of _Jehovah_ only.

The Seventy who translated the Old Testament into Greek, at the desire of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, about the 124th Olympiad, were also very sparing in the use of this name _Jehovah_; and therefore did not render it according to the sacred import of the Hebrew, but changed it into the word Κυριος, _Lord_, which is of the same signification with _Adonai_ in the Hebrew. Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius, testify, that, in their time, the Jews left the name _Jehovah_ written in their copies with Samaritan characters, instead of the common Chaldee or Hebrew characters. And those divines, who at the command of King James translated the Scriptures anew into English, have very rarely used the word _Jehovah_, but rendered it _Lord_. Yet we may observe, that when this word _Lord_ is substituted for _Jehovah_, it is printed in large Roman letters. It is to be wished, that the name _Jehovah_ had been preserved in the English translation of the Scriptures, and especially in those passages whose sense entirely depends on the meaning of the word.

After the appointment of Moses, by Jehovah, to deliver the children of Israel from the tyranny and oppression under which they groaned, and to conduct them from Egypt to worship God at Horeb, he was anxious to obtain a particular revelation of the Divine nature and attributes, that he might be able to regulate, direct, and superintend their worship; and this he deemed necessary on account of the Israelites having been long conversant among the Egyptians, who were idolaters and polytheists, and called their gods by a variety of names. Hereupon he said to God, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say unto me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?” Intimating, that it was expedient God should call himself by an appropriate name, to distinguish himself from all the gods of the heathen. For men did not, at this time, as Dr. Shuckford observes, know the works of creation well enough to demonstrate from them the attributes of God; nor could they, by speculation, form proper and just notions of his nature. Though he had revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name אני אל שדי _Ani El shaday_, “I am God all-sufficient,” and likewise that of יהוה _Jehovah_; yet a further knowledge of him was sincerely desired and earnestly requested.[3]

Whereupon, says God to Moses, I AM _that_ I AM, אהיה אשר אהיה EHEYEH _asher_ EHEYEH. The Vulgate translates these words--EGO SUM QUI SUM, _I am who am_. The Septuagint--Εγω ειμι ὁ Ων, _I am he who exists_. The Arabic paraphrases them--_The Eternal, who passes not away_. Not _I was_, but I AM and WILL BE: a name that expresses his own essence, and signifies independency, immutability, and necessary existence. As if he had said, You may inquire who I am, and by what name I would be distinguished: know then that I AM HE who has being from himself, and has no dependence on any other.[4] This contains in it the whole plenitude and possibility of being, all that is, or can be, or, as the Apostle expresses it, παν το πληρωμα της Θεοτητος “all the fulness of the Godhead.” By this name he is distinguished not only from all false gods, but from all other beings whatsoever; implying, that he exists after some very eminent and peculiar manner, and that nothing else besides him truly and essentially is.[5]

The self-existence of God proves that he always was, and evidently shows that he cannot cease to be. “He is, and was, and is to come.” His necessary existence comprehends a duration which has neither beginning, succession, nor end. He can have no succession in his duration, because wherever this is there must be priority, and wherever there is a priority there must be a beginning. He is in the complete possession of an endless life, all at once. He exists in one eternal _now_. He is unchangeable in his essence or manner of existence, so that no perfection can be added to him, nor any excellency taken from him, but he remains invariably the same.

All natural perfections are essential to him as an infinite being, such as eternity, omnipotence, immensity, omniscience, spirituality, and immutability; and all moral perfections belong to him as a good Being, such as wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, faithfulness. These latter are communicable, because there are some rays of them in his creatures, but none of them in that transcendent degree that are in him, nor ever can be. The former we call his _natural_ and _incommunicable_ perfections, for the sake of distinction; though it is certain the latter are equally as natural to him, and incommunicable, in that infinite degree possessed by himself.

God being unchangeable in his essence, must also be so in all his perfections, because they are no other than his essence, and are not distinguished in him, either from his essence, or from one another; but are one and the same Being, revealed and manifested to us, under various notions, which we call _attributes_, to help us the better to conceive of him, who are not able to apprehend what may be known of him, under any one name, or by any one act of our understanding.

The combination of all his perfections renders him a glorious Being; and that fixed and invariable state of contentment and satisfaction, complacency and delight, which result from the secure possession and enjoyment of all that is good and desirable, or, in other words, of all possible excellencies and perfections in the highest degree, constitutes him infinitely blessed.

Moses was favored with another remarkable and interesting manifestation of the Divine Being; for perceiving God’s merciful condescension in answer to his prayers offered up for his people, he persevered in the holy exercise, and even asked him for a manifestation of his glory: “Show me,” said he, “I beseech thee, thy glory,” or, according to the original, “make me see it.” He could not mean an open view of the unclouded majesty of God, but only such a display of the Divine glory as a mortal is capable of beholding. God answered, “I will make all my _goodness_ to pass before thee:” intimating, that his _goodness_ is his glory, and that he could not bear the infinite splendor of his holiness and justice. _Goodness_ is the true and genuine character of God, and the glory of all his other perfections, and by it they are all rendered engaging. Without this they would be terrible: for wisdom without goodness degenerates into insidious cunning; and power without it is the character of a tyrant. Were God destitute of this amiable perfection, he would have such a defect in his nature, as infinite perfection itself, in every other attribute, could not sufficiently compensate.

All nations have acknowledged this perfection of the Divine Being. Plato calls him the ιδεα του αγαθου, the idea or essence of goodness. In the three principles of the Platonic Trinity--το αγαθον _goodness_, νους _intelligence_, and ψυχη _vitality_.--The first place is assigned to the το αγαθον _goodness_, which the Platonists conceive to be like an immense and most pure light, continually diffusing and communicating its invigorating beams. To this the Platonist Boctius alludes, in that celebrated description of God, where he calls him _Fons Boni Lucidus_, the lucid fountain of goodness.--There is an ancient cabalistical table, supposed to be borrowed from the Pythagoreans, which represents, in a visible scheme, the order of the Divine perfections: wherein it is observable that _goodness_ presides over, and gives laws and measures to all the other attributes of God.

Philo says, God is the name of _goodness_; and our English word, adds a late author, seems to be a contraction of the word _good_; or, however, is the same with the German _Got_, or _Godt_, which came, as is thought, from the Arabic word _Gada_, of the same signification. So that the German and the English name of the Supreme Being, in common use, is taken from the attribute of his _goodness_. “The word itself is pure Anglo-saxon,” says Dr. Adam Clarke, “and, among our ancestors, signified not only the Divine Being, now commonly designated by the word, but also _good_; as in their apprehension it appears, that _God_ and _Good_ were correlative terms; and when they thought or spoke of him, they were ever led from the word itself to consider him as THE GOOD BEING a fountain of infinite benevolence and beneficence towards his creatures.” The word GOD, expressed in the old Saxon, is _bona res_, a good thing.

That God is _good_, is the constant language of Divine revelation; for this attribute is every where celebrated, both in the Old and New Testament. It may be distinguished as _natural_, _moral_, and _communicative_. The first of these is the absolute perfection of his nature, which is goodness itself in its very essence. He is originally good, and that of himself; which is a property peculiar to no other creature, for all the goodness of the creature is derived from God. He is infinitely and therefore incomprehensively good to men and angels; hence his goodness knows no limits. We read of the “riches of his goodness,” which are as “unsearchable,” as is his “greatness.” He is immutably good, for “the goodness of God endureth continually.” And as his dependence on no one admits not of his being changed by others, so neither does his immutability admit of it by himself; for if he alter for the better he was not God before, and if for the worse, he then would not be God. Thus he is essentially, originally, infinitely, incomprehensibly, and unchangeably good.

The _moral_ goodness of God is his perfect purity or holiness; therefore his goodness and holiness are united--“good and upright is the Lord.” According to any rational opinion we can form of him, he is a Being possessed, not only of every natural power and perfection, but of every moral excellence. The holiness of his nature removes him to the greatest possible distance from all moral evil, and makes him necessarily approve of moral good. All his designs are pure and upright, and worthy of himself: he always acts according to the perfect rectitude of his own nature. Though he is not under the direction of any superior, yet his own rectitude always determines him to pursue what is right to be done towards his creatures. This property of the Divine Being greatly heightens our idea of his excellence, and naturally points him out as the Governor of mankind. And as he adheres to it in his own conduct and administration, and likewise approves and loves it in his rational creatures, whom he governs; so he disapproves and hates the reverse in them, and will most certainly animadvert upon the temper and behavior of those who act contrary to his divine admonitions, and make them most sensibly feel the effects of their wickedness.

The _communicative_, or relative goodness of God, or his goodness to his creatures, is his inclination or self-propension to deal well and bountifully with them. As the notion of God includes goodness, so the idea of goodness implies holy diffusiveness. Therefore, says the Psalmist, “Thou art good, and doest good.” All that we are, have, or hope for, that is good, proceeds from God as its fountain; hence he is called, “the fountain of living waters.” This communicative goodness implies, that, from his all-sufficiency, he is ready to impart to his creatures whatever their necessities require. This attribute is universal: “he is good to all” his creatures from the highest angel to the meanest reptile; especially, to his people, “Truly,” says the Psalmist, “God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart.” But, though God is good to all his creatures, yet he is not equally so in the same kind and degree of blessings. His munificence is regulated by his wisdom, and the different capacities with which he has formed his creatures makes this inequality necessary.

[There is one vast and awful question which must occur to
every reflecting mind--_What is God?_

As it regards his _Nature_, the Scriptures say, He is a
_Spirit_. We must therefore, conceive the Creator to be, a
_Living_, _Rational_, _Benevolent_, and _Spiritual_ ESSENCE;
absolutely, necessarily, and naturally _perfect_, and,
therefore, _immaterial_, _uncompounded_, _indivisible_, and
_eternal_.

It is necessarily understood that this essence is
_peculiar_: that there is nothing in its nature which has
any resemblance to _created_ substances, whether material
or spiritual; and that it is _underived_, and consequently,
_independent_.

This Divine Essence being immaterial, impalpable, simple
and indivisible, cannot have _body_ or _parts_: nor can it be
said to be a _whole_, for this would imply an _aggregation_ of
parts: but is itself a perfect, absolute, single, and eternal
INDIVIDUALITY, incapable of self-multiplication, or increase;
or of diminishing itself, or endangering its existence.

This essence is a _living_ essence; and, therefore, has
inherently the power and principles of _action_: It is a
_rational_ essence, and therefore, must act according to
the eternal principles of _reason_ and _right_: It is a
_benevolent_ essence, and therefore, all its actions must
be infinitely _good_ and _kind_. Absolute _perfection_,
_infinitude_, and _sovereignty_ in all these respects,
constitute the Being we call God.

As God is a single, indivisible, independent, and eternal
UNIT, we cannot ascribe _different_ perfections, or attributes
to him, so as to suppose one attribute _separate from, and
independent of_ another, capable of acting _per se_, or
participating _conjunctively_ with other attributes _as an
integer_. Nor can we suppose this eternal, and independent Unit
to act by being _operated upon_ in any degree, by other agents,
nor can he operate on himself. All his actions, therefore,
spring from himself, and are performed _without excitement,
effort, means, or previous ratiocination_.

It will follow from the preceding reasoning, that every
action of the Divine Being, in regard to himself, is precisely
the same in _nature_: so that we cannot say of one act it is
an effort of his _power_ to the _exclusion_ of his wisdom: nor
of his wisdom to the exclusion of his goodness: nor of his
goodness to the exclusion of his holiness: and so of the rest.
Strictly speaking we cannot say the power _of_ God; the wisdom
_of_ God; the goodness _of_ God, &c.; because the power of God
_is_ God; the wisdom of God _is_ God; the goodness of God _is_
God.

In contemplating this awful subject _abstractly_, we should
say there are no such things as _attributes_ in the Divine
Being, _as they are commonly understood_. What we call his
attributes, are only different modes of the operations of the
same eternal, undivided, and independent Unit. Indeed, God is
one entire perfection which exerts itself in different ways and
actions.

But as we cannot comprehend this single entire perfection;
nor understand _how_ it exerts the whole of itself, as a single
indivisible agent, _in each particular act_, as it really
does, mankind have always been in the habit of assisting their
contemplations by regarding the _nature_ of the acts of this
single, indivisible, and eternal agent, and thus _infering_
the nature of the Divine Being. And as these acts appear
to differ in _quality_, we infer a quality in the agent,
corresponding with the quality of the actions which we see: we
call this quality by a _name_, and _thus derive the doctrine of
attributes_.

For example: When we see this single, indivisible agent
manifesting himself in such a manner as to give us the idea
of _unlimited power_, we ascribe _omnipotence_ to him, as an
attribute. When we see a manifestation indicating _infinite
wisdom_, we ascribe _omniscience_ to him as an attribute.
In the same manner in reference to the manifestations
which indicate justice, goodness, mercy, truth, holiness,
faithfulness, righteousness, kindness, &c, all of which we
ascribe to him upon such indications.

Although _this rationale_, in contemplating the Divine
Being, is necessary to _creatures_, yet it is calculated to
lead the mind into error. We am insensibly inclined to ascribe
the divine actions to those attributes _exclusively_ which
we suppose they indicate. This, probably, has been the most
fatal error of mankind, and, doubtless, laid the foundation
of darkness and idolatry. We must never conceive that any act
of the Divine Being proceeds from _one_ or more attributes to
the _exclusion_ of others; or that one attribute participates
_more_ in one act than another. This is the fatal mistake.
Hence theologians have become blind and foolish, bewildering
the multitude by building up theories on the consideration of
a single attribute; thus making the Divine Being to consist
of parts, and these parts independent too. Instances of this
awful mistake might be given, but it scarcely comes within the
design of this paper. It is sufficient to say; if we conceive
correctly of the divine acts, _we will ascribe each equally to
all the Divine Attributes_.

As we conceive this single, indivisible, underived,
independent, and eternal agent, or perfection to be absolutely
infinite, and illimitable in all possible ways, or manner, of
exerting Himself, we, of course, conceive all the qualities,
indicated by the divine acts, which we call attributes, to be
absolutely infinite, perfect, and eternal: and thus we derive
the doctrine of the absolute perfection, and infinitude of all,
and each of the Divine Attributes.

From the foregoing reflections, the reader will readily
conceive of the Divine Being, as a Living, Rational,
Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence, existing as a single,
underived, independent, Unit: a Unit, not in reality consisting
of attributes, or perfections, but itself one single, entire
perfection: exerting itself not by attributes, but as an
individual Unit or Agent, in such a manner that each action
is the action of the Divine Being, and not of one or more of
his attributes: that the existence of this single, underived,
independent, and eternal Agent, was, and is _necessary_, and,
therefore, he could not but have existed, and cannot cease to
be; that He is absolute, and infinite in all possible ways and
manner of acting, and consequently we conceive Him possessed of
all possible perfections in an infinite degree.]

By the assistance of Divine revelation we are enabled further to pursue our inquiries concerning this very important subject; and without which, we should be involved in great darkness and uncertainty, not only respecting his moral perfections, but the _mode_ of his existence. And this must be a matter of superior interest to mankind, or our adorable Creator would not have communicated it, which he evidently has done through the medium of the Scriptures, written by Divine inspiration.

Moses, having received by Divine revelation instruction concerning the origin and formation of the world, conducts us at once to its great and adorable Architect. “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.” Here he adopts a phraseology to express the supreme Being, which is generally used in the Old Testament for the same purpose, and is very important and necessary to be understood, as it gives us information after what _manner_ he exists. ‘The original word אלהימ _Elohim_, God,’ says a great linguist, ‘is certainly the plural form of אל _el_, or אלה _eloah_, and has long been supposed, by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a _plurality_ of persons in the divine nature.’ As this plurality appears in so many parts of the sacred writings to be confined to _three_ Persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, hence the doctrine of the TRINITY.

It is very remarkable that we no sooner open the Bible, than this doctrine is presented to our view. The laws and ordinances established among the Jews were designed to guard that people from idolatry, which in Abraham’s time had become very general. On the recollection of this circumstance it appears extraordinary that Moses, when he is describing the creation of the world, should, in order to express his conceptions of the Divine Being, introduce a term which implies _plurality_; and, frequently connecting it with verbs and persons singular, should use that term _thirty_ times in the short account of the creation, when the language afforded other words in the singular number that would have answered his purpose equally well; nay, if he did not wish to express a _plurality_, that grammatical accuracy should have led him to adopt. When he made use of a plural noun for the name of God, which he has done, perhaps, _five hundred_ times more in one form or other in the five books of his writings, this _plurality_, I apprehend, was the idea he meant to convey to mankind. He, or rather the HOLY SPIRIT, by whom he was inspired to write his history, meant to give some hints and intimations of a doctrine more clearly to be revealed in future ages.[6]

The ancient Jews understood _Elohim_ as conveying the idea of a plurality in the Godhead. “Come,” says one of them, “and see the mystery of the word _Elohim_: there are _three degrees_, and each degree by itself _alone_, and yet notwithstanding they are all _one_, and joined together in one, and are not _divided_ from each other.”[7]

R. Bechai, a celebrated author among the Jews, discoursing of the word _Elohim_, and of the import and signification of it, adds these words:--“According to the cabalistical way, this name _Elohim_ is two words, namely, _El him_, that is, _they are God_. But the explanation of the Yod is to be fetched from Eccles. xii, 1, _Remember thy_ CREATORS. He that is prudent will understand it.” These words do sufficiently prove the Cabala among the Jews, says Bishop Kidder, that though the Divine Nature was but _one_, yet there was some kind of _plurality_ in this Divine Nature; and this is fairly insinuated in the _Bara Elohim_, which we find in the beginning of Genesis.[8]

John Xeres, a Jew converted in England some years ago, published a sensible and affectionate address to his unbelieving brethren, wherein he says, that “the word _Elohim_, which we render GOD in Gen. i, 1, is of the plural number, though annexed to a verb of the singular number; which,” says he, “demonstrates as evidently as may be, that there are several persons partaking of the same Divine nature and essence.”[9]

It is clear too, how sensible the Jews have been that there is a notion of _plurality_ plainly imported in the Hebrew text, since they have forbidden their common people the reading of the history of the creation, lest, understanding it literally, they should be led unto heresy.[10] When the Scriptures are suppressed, or the common people denied the use of them, it may with propriety be presumed that their superiors, who act in an arbitrary and unjust manner, have embraced anti-scriptural notions, and, in order to prevent detection, lay aside the only infallible _test_ of truth; and, to conceal their base motives, and make their deleterious conduct appear not only plausible, but necessary and proper, they boldly assert the incompetency of the people to judge of scripture doctrines for themselves, and wish to be considered compassionate and friendly in judging and deciding for them. The fact is, the common people are denied the use of the Scripture, lest understanding it in a certain sense, which their superiors call heresy, it should lead them into the understanding of plain and unequivocal facts stated therein, and which are of the utmost importance for them to know.

It may be observed here likewise, that the Hebrew doctors always supposed the first verse of Genesis to contain some latent mystery. The Rabbi Ibba indeed expressly says it does, and adds, “This mystery is not to be revealed, till the coming of the Messiah.”

Mr. Parkhurst, who has greatly distinguished himself in Hebrew literature, and to whose pious and learned labors most Biblical students are indebted, says, “Let those who have any doubt whether אלהימ _Elohim_, when meaning the true God, Jehovah, be _plural_ or not, consult the following passages, where they will find it joined with adjectives, pronouns, and verbs _plural_:” he refers to twenty-five texts in the Old Testament on this occasion.[11]

If Moses and the Jews held the doctrine of the Trinity, and the word _Elohim_ imports _plurality_, it is natural to ask, How comes it to pass that the Septuagint version renders the plural name Elohim, when used for the true God, by the singular one Θεος, and never by the plural Θεοι? The learned Ridley,[12] after Allix, has answered this question. He says, “The Talmudists own that the LXXII Interpreters did purposely change the notion of _plurality_ implied in the Hebrew _Elohim_ into the Greek singular, lest Ptolemy Philadelphus should conclude that the Jews, as well as himself, had a belief of Polytheism.” And Bishop Huntingford adds, “Of all the Greek appellations of Divinity, Θεος was the only simple and direct term which they could adopt, to counteract idolatrous misconceptions.”

This phraseology, as to its signification, is not peculiar to Moses, but is used by the other sacred writers also, and exactly accords with the whole tenor of Divine revelation. The creation of the world is ascribed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as joint, concurring, equal, and efficient causes thereof, in the Scriptures. It will not surely be presuming too much, says Bishop Huntingford, if we suppose Joshua and Solomon to be more deeply instructed in the Jewish Religion, than to be capable of using improper language respecting the Deity. Yet the former says, “Ye cannot serve the Lord: for he is the Holy Gods;” and the latter says, “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom; and the knowledge of the Holies is understanding.”[13] Such is the phraseology of the Hebrew text. In these passages, and others that might be produced, the word in the Hebrew is in the plural number, because of the _plurality_ of persons in the Godhead; but in our translation it is in the _singular_ number, because of the unity of their essence.

But more particularly. The creation of the world is ascribed to JEHOVAH: “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” He had no _moving causes_ exciting him to create matter and produce a universe, but his own will, goodness, wisdom, and power. He created all things himself, without the assistance of _any instruments_. The prophet ascribes to God alone the framing and stretching out of the heavens and the earth without the counsel, direction, or ministry of any subordinate agency. “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with a span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?” He created all things without any _toil_, _labor_, _change_, or _alteration_ in himself. There was not in him any transition from rest to labor, from idleness to business, from strength to weariness. Though “every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,” yet “with him there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” The Prophet says, “Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?” And he proceeded in the work of creation without _any delay_: it was not a successive forming of things by alteration, which required much time to render them perfect, but was as in a moment, as quickly and readily as a word is spoken, produced in the rapid succession as recorded by Moses. This work then God is said to have done _alone_, to the exclusion, not of the Son and the Spirit, but of all that are not God by nature; and by himself, to the exclusion of all second causes or inferior agents.

It is ascribed also to the SON of God. The evangelist John asserts in very express terms the Divinity of Jesus Christ, of the truth of which he designed his whole Gospel should be a proof. “In the beginning was the Λογος Word.” By the εν αρχη _beginning_, here, we are to understand the beginning of the creation, not the beginning of the gospel state, as the Socinians say. We have the authority of Grotius, that εν αρχη is taken from בראשית _Bereshith_, Gen. i, 1, translated by the Septuagint εν αρχη, and consequently must signify, from _the beginning of the creation of God_. It is not said, that _he_ was _made_ in the beginning, but that he _was_ in the beginning, did exist when the world began, which is of the same import as if he said, he was from eternity; for he that did exist in the beginning, never did himself begin to be. The personal Wisdom of God says, “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.”--“And the Logos,” or “Word, was with God.” He could be with no creature, because there was no creature in being; and therefore it is very properly said, that he “was with God,” the Father; and his being with him shows, that he is a distinct person or subsistence from the Father.--“And the Logos,” or “Word was God.” Though he is a person distinct from that of the Father, yet he is of the very same essence with him. He that was with God, was God; and if he was God in the beginning, that is from eternity, he is the same still, he cannot cease to be what he was. Here then the evangelist asserts the eternal existence of Christ, his personal co-existence with the Father, and that he is of the very same undivided nature and essence with him. Though he is a person distinct from the Father, yet he is of the same substance, equal with him in all divine perfections; not a _secondary_ God, inferior to the Father, as the Arians assert. “All things were made by him.” All things, from the highest angel to the meanest worm, were made by him, not as a subordinate instrument, but as a co-ordinate agent, as a joint efficient cause, co-operating with the Father in this work. ‘To say that Christ made all things by a delegated power from God, is _absurd_; because the thing is impossible. Creation means, causing that to exist that had no previous being: this is evidently a work which can be effected only by _omnipotence_. Now God cannot delegate his _omnipotence_ to another: were this possible, he _to_ whom this omnipotence was delegated, would, in consequence, become God; and he _from_ whom it was delegated, would _cease to be such_: for it is impossible that there should be _two_ omnipotent beings.’ “And without him was not any thing made that was made.” This is added for the more certainty, it being usual with the Hebrews, when they would affirm that a thing is so indeed, to confirm by a particular negative what they had before affirmed. Our Lord said to the Jews, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” The phrase ὡς αρτι signifies “to this time,” “to the present,” that is, in all works whatever. Hence he is no creature, or he must have created himself; and if he created himself, he must have been in existence and not in existence at the very same time, which is both contradictory and absurd. And if every work performed by the Father was equally performed by the Son, the Son must, in all respects, be equal to the Father, in nature and perfections. This our Lord’s words signify and imply, and in this sense the Jews understood him--as “making himself equal with God.”[14] “He is the image of God,” the πρωτοτοχος “FIRST PRODUCER of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:” all the angels, however diversified in rank or employment in the heavenly world; and all the rational, animal, vegetable, and inanimate creatures, belonging to this terrestrial abode: “all things were made by him,” as the efficient cause, “and for him,” as the last end.--“God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds,” i.e. the heavens and the earth. The Father does all by the Son, and the Son does all from the Father. Whatsoever the Father does, that also does the Son likewise. “Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, oh God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands.” In these passages the _Divinity_ of Christ is plainly asserted, and the operations of his power are proofs of his Godhead. He that is the Creator of all things is God: but Christ is the Creator of all things; therefore Christ is God. He calls himself “the Beginning of the creation of God,” where the word αρχη means the Creator, the efficient Cause of all things, he by whose power the creation had its beginning and perfection. And “he that built all things is God.”

The learned Jacob Bryant wrote a very valuable Tract entitled, _The sentiments of Philo Judæus concerning the ΛΟΓΟΣ, or Word of God_; from which the following are quotations. “Philo Judæus speaks at large in many places of the Word of God, the second person, which he mentions as _the second Divinity_, the _great Cause_ of all things, and styles him as Plato, as well as the Jews, had done before, the LOGOS. Of the Divine Logos or Word he speaks in many places, and maintains at large the Divinity of the second Person, and describes his attributes in a very precise and copious manner, styling him _the second Deity, who is the Word of the supreme God, his first-begotten Son; and the image of God_. In his treatise upon _creation_, he speaks of the Word as _the Divine operator by whom all things were disposed_: and mentions him as _superior to the angels and all created beings, and the image and likeness of God_, and says, that _this image of the true God was esteemed the same as God_. _This_ LOGOS, _the_ WORD _of_ GOD, says he, _is superior to all the world, and more ancient; being the productor of all that was produced. The eternal Word of the everlasting God is the sure and fixed foundation upon which all things depend_.”

Creation is moreover ascribed to the HOLY SPIRIT. That the Holy Spirit has a _personality_ distinct from that of the Father, and also that of the Son, and a real and proper _Divinity_, is a doctrine of Divine revelation. In his personal capacity, he is not the Father, nor the Son. He neither is nor can be divided either from the Divine essence, nor from the other two persons, but yet is personally distinct from them. His relation to, and mission by, the Father and the Son, clearly evince his personal distinction. He is called the Spirit of the _Father_, and the Spirit of the _Son_. He is represented as _sent_ by the Father, and also as _sent_ by the Son. These things show that he is a Divine person, and has a distinct personality. The Holy Spirit is the last in the order of subsistence: the Father is the first, the Son is the second, and the Holy Spirit is the third. Yet we should know, that the Father is not before the Son, nor the Son before the Holy Spirit, by a priority of time, nor of dignity and perfections; for the three persons in the Divine essence are _co-eternal_.

The Holy Spirit was equally concerned with the Father and the Son in the work of Creation. “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath (Heb. Spirit) of his mouth.” The _breath_ or spirit of the Lord’s _mouth_, says an excellent author, does undoubtedly mean the third person of the Trinity; who is called, “The Spirit of God, and the Breath of the Almighty.”--“They lift up their voice to God with one accord, and said, LORD, thou art GOD, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that therein is. WHO, by the mouth of thy servant David, hast said,” &c. The terms LORD and GOD are here used to express the Divinity of _him_, says the same able writer, who spake _by the mouth_ of his servant David. But it was the HOLY GHOST who _spake by the mouth_ of his servant David--for, saith St. Peter, “This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the HOLY GHOST,” by the mouth of David, “spake,” &c. Therefore the terms LORD and GOD are certainly used to _express the Divinity of the_ HOLY GHOST.[15] In the work of creation, the “SPIRIT of GOD moved upon the face of the waters,” by an infinite vitality infusing life, and with a formative energy giving form. “By his SPIRIT he hath garnished the heavens” with an incalculable number of luminous stars; all those glittering worlds, which serve for use as well as beauty, were formed by the Spirit of God.

As none but the _third_ Person in the Godhead is ever so much as once in the Scriptures called the _Spirit of God_; so the Holy Spirit’s agency in the work of creation evinces his distinct personality, and is a confirmation of his proper Divinity. A cause must be equal to the effect it produces: but no finite spirit could be a joint, concurring, efficient cause in the work of the creation: therefore the Holy Spirit is God. Supposing the matter of which the worlds were made to be called into being out of nothing by the Almighty power of the Father, or by the fiat of the Son; yet the animating of the whole lifeless mass, the putting of every part into motion, the assortment of all the particles, the assigning of them their proper places, and the completing of the whole with such astonishing beauty and harmony, which was the peculiar work of the Holy Spirit, required no less than an almighty power, which clearly demonstrates that he is God.

Thus we see that the creation of the world is ascribed to one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son and the Holy Spirit were joint Creators, of equal power, and equal efficiency with the Father. There is no where to be found in the Scriptures the least hint of different degrees of creating energy, nor of sole efficiency in one of the Persons in the Godhead, and a bare instrumental compliance in the other. The creation was the common effect of their joint acting: nor is it ever said, nor so much as hinted or implied, that the distinct Persons in the Godhead had different provinces, nor that one creature was made by one, and another creature was the workmanship of another. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are never represented as acting separately, but always in conjunction.

The sacred historian assures us, that, at the commencement of time, אלהימ _Elohim_, the triune God, caused matter to exist, which, previous to this astonishing display of his creating energy, had no being. Moses, as an inspired author, is the only one who could instruct us in the formation and unfolding of the world. He is not an Epicurus, who has recourse to atoms; a Lucretius, who believes matter to be eternal; a Spinoza, who admits a material God; a Descartes, who prates about the laws of motion; but a legislator, who announces to all men without hesitation, without fear of being mistaken, how the world was created. Nothing can be more simple, nor more sublime than his opening: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” He could not have spoken more assuredly, if he had been a spectator; and by these words, mythology, systems, and absurdities, shrink to nought, and are mere chimeras in the eyes of reason.[16]

Had Moses been a fictitious writer, how natural and how easy would it have been for him to have filled up the first part of his history with marvellous relations about the creation? With what pomp of language, with what waste of rhetoric, could he probably have embellished that surprising scene? With what a grand _apparatus_ of celestial machinery might he have made the omnipotent Architect come forth to build a universe? How many sub-agents and subalterns would a fabulous poet or historian have employed in this stupendous and multifarious work? With what solemnity would every part have been gone about, and with how many episodes, digressions, and reflections, would the story have been filled, in order to give it an air of the marvellous? But read the beginning of Genesis, and observe how differently Moses writes. No scope is given to fancy or invention. All is narrated with an ease, plainness, and simplicity, which evidently shows that he kept close to truth, and laid down the facts just as they were presented to his mind; a manner of writing rarely, if at all, to be found in any other historians, but such as had the honor of being the _amanuensis_ of the SPIRIT of truth.[17]

The description which Moses furnishes concerning the creation, as relating to circumstances previous to the existence of mankind, could be derived only from immediate revelation. It was received by the Jews with full conviction of its truth, on the authority of that _inspiration_ under which Moses was known to act.[18] And when the creation of the world began, by the lapse of time, to be removed to a remote distance, God was pleased thus to provide a contemporary historian, and appoint a whole nation to be the guardians of his history; as well that this register might be the most authentic, as that all mankind might hence be instructed in the knowledge of a fact, which was so necessary for them to know, and yet so impossible to be otherwise ascertained.[19]

It may be proper to notice, that some futile objections have been made to the period which is assigned by Moses to the creation, as though it were too recent to be reconciled with reason and philosophical inquiry. How long matter remained in a quiescent state after its creation, we have no data to enable us to determine: but, as its resting in an animate state, so far as we know, could answer no valuable purpose, we may reasonably conjecture the time would not be long. The creation of the world began, according to Usher, before the Christian era 4004 years, if we follow the Hebrew text. The Septuagint version places it 5872, and the Samaritan 4700 before the vulgar era.--Sanchoniathon, the first Phenician historian, according to the most extended accounts of Porphyry, flourished long after Moses, probably not less than two hundred years. Manetho, high-priest of Heliopolis, wrote the Egyptian history only in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, not more than 300 years before Christ, and professes to have transcribed his Dynasties from some pillars of Hermes Trismegistus, written in the Hebrew dialect.--Berosus was the first noted Chaldean historian, and he was contemporary with Manetho.--The Chinese have not any work in an intelligible character above 2200 years old. One of the Chinese emperors, about 213 years before the Christian era, ordered all their historical records to be destroyed.--The Greeks could produce no dates beyond 550 years before Christ, and but little historical information prior to the Olympiads, which began 775 years before the Christian era. Orpheus and Museus, fabulous poets, were not so remote as Moses; for it is supposed they lived about 200 years after him, in the days of Gideon. Daries Phrygius and Dystys Cretensis, fabulous poets, wrote the history of the Trojan war, about 400 years after Moses. Homer wrote his poems after David’s time, and about 550 years after Moses. Herodotus, called the father of history, who flourished about 450 years before the Christian era, was the first Grecian historian that deserves the name; yet he begins with fable. Thucydides rejects, as uncertain, all that preceded the Peloponnesian war; and Plutarch, not one of the least historians among the Grecians, ventured not beyond the time of Theseus, who lived a little before the ministry of Samuel.[20] So that all these poets and historians flourished long after the time of Moses, some of them nearly a thousand years; for he wrote about A. M. 2460. The works of the Jewish lawgiver are not only the most ancient, but also the most authentic, of all the monuments of antiquity.

If the world were some thousands of years older, it must be much better peopled than it is at present. Population has always increased since the deluge, and yet there might be three times as many more inhabitants on the earth than it at present contains. It has been computed that at least 5000 millions of men might live at once on our globe: and yet it does not appear that there are really more than 1080 millions. In Asia are reckoned 650 millions; in Africa and America, 300 millions; and in Europe, 130 millions.

If we consider the arts invented by men, we shall find that few or none of them have been discovered more than two or three thousand years. Man owes not only to his nature and reason the aptitude he has for acquiring arts and sciences, but he is also led to this by necessity; by the desire he has to procure himself conveniences and pleasures; by vanity and ambition; and by luxury, the child of abundance, which creates new wants. This propensity is evident among all men, in all ages. History carries us back to the time when men had scarcely invented the most necessary arts; when those arts which were known were but very imperfectly understood; and in which they scarcely knew any thing of the first principles of the sciences.

About four thousand years ago, men were still in a state of great ignorance concerning most subjects; and if we calculate according to the progress which they made since that time, and afterwards go back to the remotest periods, we may with tolerable exactness fix the era when men knew nothing; which is, in other words, that of the infancy of the human race. Were their existence to be carried higher, it is utterly improbable that the most useful and necessary arts should have continued unknown to them through such a long series of ages. On the contrary, all that can be discovered by the human mind must have been known a long time ago. From this circumstance therefore we must conclude, that the origin of the human race can have no other era than that which Moses has assigned it in his history of the creation.[21]