Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

repofitory of the most remote antiquities, religion, polity, and lite rature of the Jewish nation; to which, in all their pofterior writers, there is a conftant reference or allufion. To them the righteous judge, the reforming prince, the admonishing prieft, the menacing prophet, perpetually and uniformly appealed: on them the hiftoriographer, the orator, the poet, and the philofopher, endeavoured to form their respective styles: and to rival the language of the Pentateuch was, even in the most felicitous periods of their ftate, confidered as the highest effort of Hebrew genius :'

-And, after briefly affigning reafons why thefe books, whether confidered as a compendium of hiftory, or as a digeft of laws, or as a fyftem of theology, or as models of good writing, are in fome refpects unequalled, in none overmatched, by the best productions of ancient times;' the doctor proceeds to annex fome remarks on the character of Mofes, in his hiftoric and legislative capacity.

It has been ufual with the annalifts of moft nations, to begin their hiftories with fome account of the origin of the world: fo does the author of the Pentateuch. His cofmogony is a brief one, it is true; being comprifed in one fhort chapter; but that short chapter exhibits a grand and fingular fcene. The writer does not amufe or tire his reader with long metaphyfical difcuffions, about the nature of the univerfe, the generation of matter, caufe and effect, time and eternity, and other fuch fubtile and infolvable queftions; but, with the greatest fimplicity, and the most impofing air of conviction, tells us, that an ALMIGHTY Being made those heavens which we behold, and this earth which we inhabit. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, Gen. i. 1. This is the general propofition. But, whether it refer to a prior primordial creation, or merely to one particular link in the great chain of mundane revolutions, we can only guefs from circumftances; and are free to form our conjectures, agreeably to the motives of credibility that prefent themselves to an attentive unprejudiced mind. To me it appears highly probable, from the context, and from other paffages of Hebrew fcripture, that the propofition is truly proleptical; and that by the creation of the heavens and of the earth is meant no more than producing those appearances in the former, and that change in the latter, which then gradually took place, and which are fo beautifully related in the fubfequent paragraphs. Those who deem it more probable that the words relate to a primitive and abfolute creation, and tranflate, In the beginning (or originally) God had created the heavens and the earth, must still grant that the earth was, at the period of the fix days creation, in a defolate uninhabitable state: and, accordingly, they render the next verfe, But the earth had become a defolate wafte, &c. It is, therefore, of little moment whichever of thefe two hypothefes be admitted; although

the

the latter feems to be lefs natural, lefs confiftent, and lefs analogical.'

Be that as it may, certain it is, that, according to the Hebrew cofmologift, the Earth was, before the fix days creation, a defolate wafte. Observe, he does not fay that the Heavens were a defolate wafte; he restricts this condition folely to the Earth. The creation, then, of the heavens and of the earth, muft, in the fense of our author, be understood of the alteration that took place in the latter, when it was fashione into its prefent form, and made fit to receive its prefent inhabitants. The great folar and starry fyftems are here not concerned, but in as far as they became eventually relative to this new creation. I mean not an abfolute creation out of nothing; but the refcue or refioration of a pre-existent mass of matter from a state of darkness and cefolation, to make it a fit and comfortable abode, for the beings intended to be placed therein.'

Some brief remarks follow, to fhow that the term & does not imply abfolute creation*, though the full difcuffion of the fubject is referved for the Critical Remarks.

The progreffive order of things is then defcanted on, and the doctor goes on to obferve:

"The creation, whatever it were, being thus completed in the space of fix days, GoD is faid to have refted on the feventh day from his labour: and, hence, fays the hiftorian, he hath bleed the feventh day, and made it holy, becaufe on it he ceafed from all his works which he had then ordained to do. That this inference of the hiftorian refers to the inftitution of the Jewish Sabbath, appears to me extremely probable; and I have fhewn it to be the cpinion of the most learned Jews: but whether the Hebrew cofmogony itself were adapted to the fabbatical inftitution, or the latter arofe from a prior belief of fuch a cofmogony-whether the fix days creation were, literally, a real event, or only an ingenious piece of ancient mythology-I know not any certain principle on which to ground a decifion. Those, indeed, who think that every word of the Pentateuch is divinely inspired, will be at no lofs to determine the queftion; but there are many fincere friends to religion; who are not of that opinion; and I freely confefs my felf to be one of them.'

An illustrative detail here follows on the formation of man; whence Dr. Geddes proceeds with an account of the Fall, and adds:

Tom Bradbury of orthodox fame, was a flrenuous afferter of the contrary opinion, and evidently in allufion to it, when a certain lord was advanced to the peerage, obferving that the term creating was, on fuch occafions, moft happily ufed; fince it implied the making fomething out of nothing.

[blocks in formation]

This history has very much puzzled both Jewish and Christian interpreters. It feems to have been the common opinion of the Jews, in the time of Jofephus and Philo, that the ferpent was a fpeaking animal, and walked upright: and, indeed, if we stick to the letter of the text, we can hardly fuppofe the contrary. But Philo, though he allows that this was the vulgar notion, confiders the whole account as a mere allegory. The garden of Eden is, with him, not a real garden, planted by the hand of God with real trees; for that (fays he) were an impiety to imagine: but a portion of his own divine wisdom, or a difpofition to virtue implanted on the human foul. It is faid to be planted in Eden; that is, in delight; for nothing is fo delightful as genuine virtue. The trees of this paradife are the various particular virtues, called Offices or duties of life. The four Streams flowing out of Eden are the four cardinal virtues, Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, and Juftice. Man is defired to eat of the fruit of all the trees of Paradife, because he must practife all the virtues. He is forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because he must not abandon himfelf to vice, the evil of which is only known by its oppofition to virtue. The death threatened, in cafe of difobedience, is that of the foul. Adam is the intellectual part of man; Heva the fenfual part: the ferpent is unlawful pleasure; which, by firft winning over the fenfual part, drags the intellectual after it. Hence it is declared by God to be execrable; and more execrable than all beafts; that is, all the affections of the mind; as being the fource from which they spring, and without which, perhaps, they would not exist. Crawling on the belly, is wallowing in fenfuality: eating the duft, is feeding the mind with terrestrial objects: and the enmity between the serpent and the woman, is the incompatability of vicious voluptuoufness even with genuine fenfual pleafure. The forrows of conception and childbirth, denounced to the woman, are the ftings of unlawful gratification; and her fubordination to her husband is a fubjection of the fenfual part to the intellectual part. But when this intelle&tual husband, deviating from reafon, liftens too eafily to the voice of his fenfual wife, and eats of the forbidden fruits which the presents to him; that is, confents to the evil fuggefted by her; the earth, that is, all his carnal actions, are reprehenfible and accurfed; and produce nothing but the thorns and thiftles of pungent remorfe and troublefome uneafinefs, all the days of his life.

This allegorical mode of explaining the fall (and indeed the whole cofmogony) by the moft ancient profeffed interpreter whofe works have come down to us, appeared fo ingenious and fatisfactory to the more early Chriftian fathers, that, with fome little variat ons, they generally adopted it. It was adopted, if we may credit Anaftafius Sinaita, by Papias, Pantanus, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria; and we are cer am it was adopted and improved upon by Origen. From Origen it was borrowed by the Cregories of Nyfa and Nazi

8

anzen;

[ocr errors]

anzen; and, among the Latins, by St. Ambrofe. There were not, however, wanting writers who contended for a literal meaning, and who charged the Origenifts with impiety and herefy particularly, the credulous Epiphanius, and the acrimonious Jerome. The more moderate Austin contented himfelf with faying that, among the various opinions which had been held on this fubject, there were three prevailing ones, in his days: the firft, that of thofe who believed the literal fenfe only; the fecond, that of those who stood up for a purely fpiritual meaning; and the third, that of thofe who admitted both to which he willingly gives his affent; and which his authority contributed not a little to establish almost exclusively among the western churches.

But although it was now generally agreed, that the garden of Eden was a real material garden, its trees real trees, and their fruit real fruit; there was not fo perfect an accord about the nature of the ferpent, the dialogue between him and the woman, and the confe quences of his perfuading her to eat the forbidden fruit.-Was the ferpent, then, a real ferpent? Was he endowed with reafon and fpeech? How could a real ferpent, without reafon or speech, know, or fufpect, that God had forbidden the man and the woman to eat of the fruit of a certain tree? How could the woman be induced to enter into converfation with a vile reptile, and give credit to his deceitful words? Thefe and fuch like queftions were not easily anfwered: and, in fact, the anfwers which Cyrill gives to Julian are rather smart retorts than fatisfactory folutions.-The grand reply to all objections is, that it was not a ferpent, but the devil in the form of a ferpent, that deceived the woman; or, if it be a real ferpent, it was a ferpent organized and infpired by the devil.

6

Though this be, evidently, rather cutting than untying the mafter-knot of the difficulty; and though it ftill leave other lefs ones to be disentangled; it is furprising how fmoothly it has glided down the stream of time, from commentator to commentator; as a moft orthodox and rational interpretation.-But, let any one, of but common fenfe and fagacity, turn to Poole's Synopfis; and, either there, or in the authors whom he quotes, read carefully all the various arguments that have been devised to make the ftory of the Fall in this hypothefis coherent; and, when he has done this, let him lay his hand on his heart, and fay, if he feel any thing like conviction. In his doubts, he may, indeed, have reccurfe to the authority of a fuppofed infallible guide, or to what is called the analogy of faith; and if he deem thefe fufficient props, he may rely upon them: but, I think, he will hardly affirm, that he leans upon the pillar of reafon. The allegories of Philo and Origen may be reveries; but they are pleafant ones, and far preferable to literal inconfiftencies.

More plaufible is the expofition of Abarbanel, a celebrated Jew of the fifteenth century; which was followed by Simeon de Muis, Hebrew profeffor in the Royal College at Paris, about the middle

of the last century; and has been more recently adopted and improved by an anonymous writer in Eichhorn's Biblical Repertory, fuppofed to be Eichhorn himself. According to this hypothefis the ferpent was a real ferpent, fuch as he ftill is, neither endowed with fpeech nor organized by the devil; nor had he any converfation with the woman. What then? The woman observed him eating of that very fruit which had been forbidden to her, without his receiving any injury from it: thence the inferred that it could not be deadly on the other hand, it was beautiful to look at; knowledge was a defireable thing: all these confiderations induced her to make a trial: the iffue is known.

6

fcriptures of the New The texts alleged are,

But is not this explication contrary to the Covenant? By no means, fays Eichhorn. 1 Cor. xi. 3. John vii. 44. and Rev. xii. 9. But, in the first of thefe, there is not a word of the devil. In the fecond, the devil is faid to have been a murderer from the beginning; but there is no word of a ferpent; and the paffage is explained by John himself, in his firft Epiftle, iii. 12. In the Revelation, it is true, that the devil is called a ferpent, and a dragon alfo, according to a mode of thinking and fpeaking at that time ufual among the Jews: but this cannot fairly be brought to explain the text of Genefis.

• Another objection-If the ferpent were a mere ferpent, and only the innocent cause of the woman's tranfgreflion, how comes he to be curfed and punished? He is neither punified nor curfed, replies this writer. The words faid to be addreffed to him by God are not any part of a penalty, but a defcription of the animal; expreffing, in bold metaphorical terms, the natural antipathy that feems to fubfift between reptiles and all other creatures, especially thofe of the human kind. But in this cafe, fay the objectors, the paflage will contain no promife of a Redeemer. True, it is anfwered: but what proof is there that it was ever meant to contain fuch a promise? Did the Redeemer himself, or any of his apottles, ever appeal to it? St. Paul frequently mentions the fall of man, and his redemption; but no where quotes this paffage as even aliufive to the latter, although he often deals deeply in allegory. In fhort, if either the devil or a Redeemer be here admitted, the parallelifin of the text will be deftroyed, and its members put at variance one with another.

Equally ingenious is the reft of Eichhorn's expofition of the Fall, The voice of God refounding in the garden, is a form of thunder: the colloquy of God with Adam and Heva, is the remorfe of their own confciences for having difobeyed the divine command: the thunder continuing, they leave Paradife in a fright; dare not return; find it neceffary to toil for their bread on the common earth: the woman feels the forrows of breeding, and the pangs of childbearing; both are liable to misfortune, maladies, and death:-And all this is turned, by the author of the Pentateuch, into a beautiful profopopecia,

The

« AnteriorContinuar »