The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Mosaic History of the Creation of the World, by Thomas Wood

[A further consideration of the suggestion in the close of the last paragraph.

Although nothing can be clearer than that the Divine Essence is one, simple, and indivisible; yet this does not prevent it from subsisting in personality, i.e. in a plurality of persons.

It must be carefully observed, that the plurality has regard to the persons, not to the Essence. We cannot say there is a plurality of Essences; but we can say, the Living, Rational, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence subsists in three persons. This then is the modus existendi of the Divine Being.

Although we are assured this is his mode of existence, we do not pretend to comprehend the nature of it. We may, without any injury to the proposition, affirm, the nature of the fact is incomprehensible by created intellect. Yet the fact itself is sufficiently well attested, and is not repugnant to reason, though it is above the comprehension of reason.

It is believed by many very learned, pious, and eminent men, that the doctrine of a plurality of persons in the Godhead, can be established by an argumentation founded solely on the acknowledged nature of the Divine Being.

The Rev. James Kidd, Prof. of Oriental Languages, Marischal College and University, Aberdeen, with the approbation of many learned men in England, among whom is Dr. Adam Clarke, in whose house he delivered private lectures on his manuscript, has published a very able and satisfactory essay on this plan, of which a brief clue to the mode of argumentation is here attempted.

A. The Divine Being is a necessarily existent, and an eternally, immensely, and immutably Living, Intelligent, Rational, Moral, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence.

B. The very Law of the nature of such a being, is eternal, immense, and immutable activity, energy, and efficiency, exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably, according to his own nature.

C. That such a being was as necessarily existent, perfect, and happy, before creation, and providence as since; and would forever continue as necessarily existent, perfect, and happy, if creation and providence should cease to be.

These three propositions are so obviously true, every reader will readily and cordially grant them. It is proposed, therefore, to show, from the nature of the Divine Being, that his Essence must subsist in a plurality of persons.

The proposition does not contemplate an explanation of the manner of this subsistence; nor, at present, the number of persons; but the simple fact, That from the very nature of the Divine Being, his Essence must subsist in plural personality.

The existence of a being, or the possession, or exercise of any principle, passion or attribute, implies personality, or individual identity, which is the same thing. The mind cannot conceive of existence, passion, principle, or action, without conceiving of them inhering in actually existing Essence, which must assume in the mind the idea of personality. Therefore, personality is strictly, and properly applicable to the Divine Essence. But the doctrine of a plural personality is to be established at present.

It will be easily conceived, and readily granted, that a being which exists necessarily, eternally, immensely, and immutably, as a Living, Intelligent, Rational, Moral, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence, must have exercised Himself, and his perfections, necessarily, eternally, immensely, and immutably. This then is granted. But the mind will readily and easily perceive, that the Divine Being could not have exercised Himself thus, in the works of Creation and Providence. Because, it is readily admitted, there was a time when Creation and Providence began: during a whole eternity beyond this period, there was no existence except God Himself. Consequently, He cannot have been exercised according to his own nature and perfections, eternally, in reference to Creation and Providence.

Again: He cannot have exercised his perfections immensely, in reference to Creation and Providence: because, however extensive we may conceive the empire of Creation and Providence to be, it is not immense; it is actually limited, and, therefore, could not admit of an immense exercise of his nature and perfections.

It is readily granted, that the Divine Being was as necessarily, and perfectly happy before Creation and Providence as since; and if Creation and Providence should cease, his happiness would continue the same: hence, it follows, necessarily, that the happiness of the Divine Being was, is, and ever will be entirely independent of Creation and Providence.

But the happiness of any being consists, essentially, in the exercise of its powers and perfections according to the law of its own nature. And as it has been shown, that the happiness of the Divine Being is eternal, immense, and immutable, it follows, He must have exercised Himself eternally, immensely, and immutably.

As it has been granted, That from the very nature of the Divine Being, He must have been eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, according to the law of his own nature: and it has been proven, That He could not have been eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, in reference to Creation and Providence, it follows, necessarily, that the means and principles of these eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness, must exist in his own constitution, and be exercised entirely within Himself.

This conclusion cannot be denied, granting the premises in the propositions A. B. C. in reference to the Divine Being. It remains to be proven, That such principles, and means of eternal, immense and immutable activity and happiness cannot be conceived of in the constitution of the Divine Being, without conceiving his essence to subsist in plural personality.

The consideration simply of the nature and eternal activity of the Divine Being would establish the idea of plural personality in his Essence: because the mind cannot conceive, that the same single being can be both agent and object, in reference to the same action. And as it has been proven, that previous to the existence of Creation and Providence, God existed eternally alone, consequently, no possible form of existence but Himself, and yet he was eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy; it will follow irresistibly, that there must be a plurality in his single Essence; and the mind naturally assumes, this plurality is personal; as it cannot conceive of activity, and happiness without conceiving them to belong to person, or persons. And as action implies both agent, and an object distinct from the agent; and there being no such agent, or object existing without the Divine Being, it must be infered, that these agent and object, concerned in the eternal activity and happiness of his nature, must exist inherently, eternally, immensely, and immutably within Himself.

Thus we are compelled to admit a plurality of persons in the Divine Essence.

It will be recollected, the Divine Being has not only exercised Himself eternally, but also immensely, according to the law of his own nature and perfections: i.e. He has necessarily, and eternally exercised Himself to the extent of his nature and perfections. This will be readily admitted when we reflect, that unless we admit the exercise of the nature and perfections of God to their full extent, we must admit a redundancy in the Divine Nature, and perfections, which would be manifestly absurd, as it would imply imperfection. For it would imply (if we may dare say so) that there is an efficiency, or ability in the Divine Being, which He has never exercised to its full extent; and in proportion to the deficiency in the exercise, we must conclude this efficiency or ability is useless, which would be repugnant to the true idea of the Divine Being.

It is therefore, proven, That the Divine Being necessarily exercised Himself immensely, because his nature, and perfections are immense. But it will be readily perceived, this could not be done in the works of Creation and Providence: because, however vast they may be, they are not immense: and, therefore, could not admit of the immense exercise of his nature and perfections to their full extent: from which it must follow, inevitably, That the immense exercise of his own nature and perfections must be within Himself.

As it has already been proven above, that this internal exercise in the Divine Essence necessarily implies plurality in the Godhead; so now also, is it proven, that the admission of such plurality is the only view competent to show HOW the Divine Being could have exercised his own nature and perfections immensely, as the attribute of immensity appertains to God only.

As it is granted, that the Divine Being was necessarily as happy before Creation and Providence as since, and would continue so, should Creation and Providence cease; of course his happiness consists in the exercise of his own nature and perfections according to their own law. But, in order that the Divine Being should be eternally, immensely, and immutably happy, the whole of the Divine Nature and perfections must be exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably. But if we divest the Divine Essence of its plural personality, we cannot conceive that some of the divine perfections can be exercised at all. For example: the divine goodness, love, wisdom, intelligence, and all his moral perfections. We surely cannot say, He manifests his goodness to Himself; or exercises his love towards Himself; or employs his wisdom in understanding Himself; all of which ideas are obviously absurd. But so soon as we admit the idea of a plural personality, or the subsistence of the Divine Essence in a plurality of persons, we can conceive the moral perfections exercised in Himself, between the persons of the Godhead. This is the only ground on which we can conceive of his eternal, immense, and immutable happiness. For we can readily conceive of the distinct persons in the Divine Essence, communicating mutually to each other the whole of the divine moral perfections; and thus conceive of the perfect and independent happiness of God.

The only remaining view of this subject would be this: the activity, energy, and influence of the Divine Being can only regard Creation and Providence. But as there was a past eternity before Creation and Providence began, in which the Divine Being existed, He must be considered as having been inactive, solitary, and unconscious; (because there cannot be consciousness where there is not action,) the whole and every part of which view is derogatory to the acknowledged character of God. How much more reasonable is it to conceive the Divine Essence to subsist in a plurality of persons, and thus to conceive, consistently, of the eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness of the Divine Being?

Thus we see, that what the Scriptures declare concerning the plurality of persons in the Divine Essence, cannot be otherwise, as is demonstrated above, from the necessary nature of the glorious Divinity.

The demonstration might be extended to each of the divine perfections, and the same result would be obtained. The above remarks are a mere clue to the argument which is possible, and satisfactory; founded on the necessary nature of Jehovah.

The key to the whole demonstration is this:

1. The Divine Being, from his very and necessary nature, must be eternally, immensely, and immutably active.

2. He must be eternally, immensely, and immutably happy.

3. In order to be eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, He must be exercised to the whole extent of his nature and perfections, eternally, immensely, and immutably.

4. That such an exercise of his nature and perfections, in an eternal, immense, and immutable manner, cannot be, in regard to Creation and Providence; because, Creation and Providence are not eternal, immense, and immutable.

5. As there was not any thing before Creation and Providence, but God Himself, it must follow, necessarily, that the eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness of the Divine Being were within Himself entirely.

6. As it is impossible for the human intellect to conceive, that a being can be both agent and object, in the same action, and the activity of the Divine Being has been shown to have been within Himself entirely; it follows, That the Divine Essence must have subsisted eternally, immensely, and immutably in a plurality.

7. And as the mind is forced to admit a plurality in the Divine Essence, it naturally, and necessarily assumes persons for this plurality; and thus concludes, There must be a plurality of persons in the Godhead as the Scriptures declare.

From the foregoing elements of the argument, it will be very easy to observe, if a plurality must be admitted, there is no objection in the mind to admit it is triple; and hence, as the substance of the Divine Essence has been shown to exist necessarily in a plurality, the mind conceives a triple plurality, as easy as any other, and thus conceives the reasonableness of the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity.

The most successful argument against this conclusion is this: It is impossible to conceive how three can be one. This is admitted, when the objects designated by “three” are the same as the object designated by “one.” But this is not the case in the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. The term Trinity applies to the persons in which the Divine Essence subsists, and not to the essence itself. So the term Unity applies to the Essence only, and not to the persons. This simple distinction removes the whole force of the objection.

The Unitarians, therefore, do us wrong when they say, we believe three are one. And Trinitarians do themselves wrong when they say, to the three one God: because, it is not true that there is a “three one God.” But it is a glorious truth, That the Divine Essence subsists in three persons, eternally, immensely, and immutably.

It is very natural to suppose, that God imparted a knowledge of Himself to our first parents in Paradise. The Scriptures clearly support this supposition. This knowledge would, of course, include the doctrine of the Trinity; and we cannot admit for a moment, that so important a doctrine as the plurality of persons in the Godhead, could have been wholly lost by mankind, though it might become obscured. Accordingly we find the traditionary remains of this doctrine throughout the Old World.

“The Hindoos” says M. Sonerat, “adore three principal Deities, Brouma, Schiven, and Vichenou, who are still but one; which kind of Trinity is there called Trimurti, and signifies the re-union of those powers. The generality of Indians at present, adore only one of these three divinities; but some learned men, beside this worship, also address their prayers to the three united. The representation of them is to be seen in many pagodas, under that of human figures with three heads, which on the coast of Orissa, they call Sariharabrama, on the Coromandel coast, Trimourti,” &c.

This account of M. Sonerat is very pertinent, and is confirmed by Dr. Buchanan who made extensive researches in that country. See his Star in the East.

The same tradition is found in China. “Among the ancient Chinese characters” says Dr. A. Clarke, “which have been preserved, we find the following Δ like the Greek delta. According to the Chinese dictionary Kang-hi, this character signifies union. According to Choueouen, a celebrated work, Δ is three united in one. The Lieou-chou-tsing-hoen, which is a rational and learned explanation of ancient characters, says; “Δ signifies intimate union, harmony, the chief good of man, of the heaven, and of the earth; it is the union of three.”

Lao-tse says; “He who is as visible, and yet cannot be seen, is denominated lieou; he who can be heard, and yet speaks not to the ears, hi; he who is tangible, and yet cannot be felt, is named ouei: in vain do you consult your senses about these three; your reason alone can discourse of them, and it will tell you they are but one,” &c.

One of the missionaries at Peking, who wrote the letters from which I have made the above extracts, takes it for granted, “that the mystery of the Trinity was known among the ancient Chinese, and that the character Δ was its symbol.” Dr. A. Clarke, on the 1st chap. John’s Gospel.

The existence of this same tradition in China is conveyed to us through another channel. “It was the leading feature in Lao-Kiun’s system of philosophical theology, and a sentence which he continually repeated as the foundation of all true wisdom, that Tao, the eternal reason, produced one; one produced two; two produced three; and three produced all things.” Le Compt’s Memoirs of China.

Traditions of this doctrine are found also in Chaldea and Persia indeed throughout the East; from whence all agree they were imported, through Phœnicia, into Egypt, and thence into Greece. The great and original sources of information being in the neighborhood of the Euphrates, where the first post-diluvian families resided; and the mighty intellects which were to influence the world, by the materials which were drawn from thence, being in Greece, the consequence was, we find the Grecian philosophers travelling up the streams of knowledge to the fountains, and thence returning to enlighten the world by the results of their researches. For example: Pythagoras, Plato, and others visited Egypt first, thence to Phœnicia, and thence to Chaldea, and the East, from whence they undoubtedly drew their theology. (Nor should it be forgotten that their philosophy was theological.) The concurrent testimony of history establishes this fact. The consequence of all this is, the doctrine of the Trinity was known to the Greek philosophers, who preserved it to the world in their incomparable writings, a collateral testimony of the authenticity of the Scripture doctrine. For this opinion we have the highest authority in the republic of letters.

“It is said that the first Christians borrowed their notion of a Triune God from the later Platonists; and that we hear not of a Trinity in the church till converts were made from the school of Alexandria. But if this be the case we may properly ask, Whence had those Platonists the doctrine?

“It is not surely so simple, or so obvious as to have occurred to the reasoning mind of a pagan philosopher; or if it be, why do Unitarians suppose it to involve a contradiction?—The Platonic and Pythagorean Trinities never could have occurred to the mind of him, who, merely from the works of creation, endeavored to discover the being and attributes of God; and therefore as those philosophers travelled into Egypt and the East in quest of knowledge, it appears to us in the highest degree probable, that they picked up this mysterious and sublime doctrine in those regions where it had been handed down as a dogma from the remotest ages, and where we know science was not taught systematically, but detailed in collections of sententious maxims, and traditionary opinions. If this be so we cannot doubt but that the pagan trinities had their origin in some primeval revelation. Nothing else indeed can account for a doctrine so remote from human imagination, and of which we find vestiges in the sacred books of almost every civilized people of antiquity. The corrupt state in which it is viewed in the writings of Plato and others, is the natural consequence of its descent through a long course of oral tradition. The Trinity of Platonism therefore, instead of being an objection, lends, in our opinion, no feeble support to the Christian doctrine, since it affords almost a complete proof of that doctrine having made a part of the first revelation to man.” Ency. Brit. Art. Theology.

“Some have indeed pretended, that the Trinity, which is commonly called Platonic, was a fiction of the later Platonists, unknown to the founder of the school: but any person who will take the trouble to study the writings of Plato will find abundant evidence that he really asserted a Triad Of divine hypostases, all concerned in the formation, and government of the world.” Ency. Brit. Art. Platonism.

“Pythagoras, though inferior to Plato in reputation, and lived before him, held the same doctrine, and derived it from the same sources. He visited Egypt, Persia, Chaldea, &c., and thence returned to Greece.” Ency. Brit. Art. Pythagoras.

These quotations are directly from the Encyclopedia Britannica, than which no authority can be better. I might increase the quotations to the same effect from Dr. Oglevie, the learned Cudworth and others, were it necessary. The above is thought sufficient to establish the fact, That the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity was once prevalent in the Pagan world, and that remains and traditions of it are yet abundant through all the East, where the revelations of God were made to mankind.]

CHAPTER II.
FIRST DAY.

Section I.—Chaos.

Inquiry into the origin of things natural to man — Character of Moses as a sacred historian important — Explanation of the term Created — Chaotic state of the elementary principles of matter — Influence of the Spirit of God upon the chaotic mass — Opinions of the ancients — Similitude between the first and second creation — Agency of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration asserted and proved.

As creatures possessed of conscious existence, and furnished with both intellectual and moral powers, it is very natural for us to inquire into the origin and first state of things; and, when difficulties present themselves, to meet with clear and satisfactory solutions of them, removing the darkness in which they were enveloped, affords to reflecting minds a high gratification. Without the aid of divine revelation, the creation of the world would have been involved in uncertainty, and our unassisted reason left to speculate in fields of wide conjecture. But in following the luminous torch of sacred communication, we are safely conducted to the first great Cause, by whose almighty fiat matter was called into existence, and afterwards disposed and modified according to the plan devised by the eternal Mind.

Moses, considered as a man of scientific habits, being well versed in all the “wisdom of the Egyptians”—mathematical, physical, moral, and divine; could not but know that his cosmogony would have to pass the ordeal of critical investigation, and undergo the best of philosophical inquiry: that contemporaries, as well as future and remote nations and generations, would minutely examine his historical record; and science, in its progressive state of improvement, try the validity of his system: that it would meet the inquisitive eye of genius and learning, and fall into the hands of both sincere friends and insidious enemies to religious truth: that candor would patiently search into its pretensions, impartially weigh its evidence, and sober inquiry respect its claims: while narrow prejudice, blind bigotry, or superstitious enthusiasm, would dispute its authority, deny its veracity, and disdainfully reject its aid. But listening to an all-wise Instructor, following a Guide that could not deceive him; and disregarding the envenomed tongue of calumny, the lampooning pen of the satirist, the surly frown of literary pride, and the imperious authority of exalted rank; he committed to writing a true account of the creation of the world, for the information and religious improvement of mankind to the latest generation.

Viewed as the ground-work of all future revelations, if any defect or false position were discovered in his relation of things, that would deprive his history of credibility, and decisively prove him to have been led by the sallies of a vain and heated imagination, and not the Spirit of the living God. But of this there was no danger; and, as a distinguished author pertinently observes, “from the book of Genesis, almost all the ancient philosophers, astronomers, chronologists, and historians, have taken their respective data: and all the modern improvements and accurate discoveries in different arts and sciences have only served to confirm the facts detailed by Moses, and to show, that all the ancient writers on these subjects, have approached to, or receded from truth, and the phenomena of nature, in the exact proportion as they have followed the Mosaic history.” As a writer, Moses does not attack other systems, formed on this or that hypothesis; but in a simple and incontrovertible narrative, acquaints us with the origin of matter, and the progressive formation and completion of the solar system.

The Scriptures inform us, that Moses was privileged to converse with God “face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend,” and from him received clear and manifest revelations, not by visions, ecstasies, dreams, inward inspirations, or the mediation of angels, but familiarly and with confidence, by articulate sounds, in his own language. The Lord said, “With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold.” God being a Spirit, has neither shape nor parts, consequently is invisible, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh: he is the most simple essence. When he speaks of himself as having a face, mouth, eyes, hands, &c., he adapts his language to our capacities, designing to express by these figures the perfections of his nature; but he is really one undivided essence. That which Moses saw, was only the Shekinah, a glorious brightness, the symbol of the Divine presence, and not the essence, which is invisible.

In giving an account of the true origin of things, he attends particularly to the mode, agent, and time of their being produced. His history commences with the creation of matter, “In the beginning.” Before the creative acts mentioned by him, all was eternity. Time signifies duration measured by the revolutions of the heavenly bodies; but prior to the creation of these bodies, there could be no measurement of duration, and consequently no time; therefore, “In the beginning,” must necessarily mean the commencement of time which followed, or rather was produced by God’s creative acts, as an effect follows, or is produced by a cause.

[From several expressions in this chapter, it is obvious that Mr. Wood considered the account given by Moses, in the first chapter of Genesis, to apply to universal creation, and not to be restricted to our Solar System. It is also plainly inferable, that he considered this the first exercise of God’s creative energy in any way. This view is entirely too contracted, is not clearly warranted by the text of the sacred historian, and is unnecessary.

There are no passages of Scripture which say distinctly, the Mosaic creation is the first or only acts of creative energy: but there are several which intimate the previous existence of creatures, and of course imply a previous exercise of creative power.

It is sufficiently clear that there were intelligent beings existing at the creation of this world. Hence it is said, “the morning stars sang together, and the sons of God shouted for joy,” in view of the rising creation.

Since, therefore, the previous existence of intelligent beings is established, we must, of course, assign to them some mode of subsistence; and this will compel us to assign at least what must be necessary to every creature, a place of abode, suited to his wants and conditions, without which he cannot subsist. Thus we establish even a material creation, anterior to the creation mentioned by Moses.

After weighing the account which Moses gives in the first chapter of Genesis, together with the facts and analogies in Nature, the conclusion seems irresistible, that he describes only our Solar System; which includes the seven primary planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Herschel: the four asteroides, Vesta, Juno, Ceres, and Pallas: and the eighteen moons which attend the primary planets. Because,

1. As this account forms the introduction to a revelation designed for the human family only, it is reasonable to conclude it would have reference to those bodies only which operate materially to their benefit or injury. But there are no such bodies except in the Solar System.

2. Moses in describing the formation of the heavenly bodies, mentions only the sun and moon in a conspicuous manner: because, these are the only luminaries which contribute essentially to our comfort: and then, lest a beholder might imagine God did not also make the other suns and stars, says incidentally, “He made the stars also.”

3. The conclusion is clear from the fact, that the Solar System is complete in itself: forming a perfect whole, which could exist were all other stars and suns destroyed, and vice versâ, all other systems could exist were the Solar System destroyed.

4. It does not well comport with the character of the Divine Being, when we consider his eternal power, infinite wisdom, and boundless goodness, to suppose He never exercised his creative energies but once, and that not until a few thousand years since. Yet we are compelled to this conclusion, however reluctantly, unless we restrict the Mosaic account of the creation to our Solar System.

This argument will derive additional weight, when we recollect the immensity of God’s works taken together, and the illimitable space in which he has, and may, exercise his creative energy. We may approximate towards a very faint idea of their immensity, by calling to mind the immense number of fixed stars. All astronomers admit their number to be very great indeed, but how many cannot be correctly known. There may be millions whose light has not reached us yet. Of those which may be detected, Professor Vince, says, there are at least seventy-five millions; and each the centre of a system as large, possibly much larger than our own. Indeed we can scarcely approach towards a competent idea of illimitable space. The nearest fixed star is supposed to be Sirius, or the dog-star, at the lowest calculation twenty-two billions of miles distant. If we compute according to this analogy, and say there are seventy-five millions of fixed stars, each the centre of a system, perfect, and independent: what mind can conceive the illimitable space through which these worlds must lie? Yet this would scarcely be an approximation towards the true extent. Beyond this there is still unoccupied space, “where existence sleeps in the wide abyss of possibility.”

It may, therefore, be asked with justice, whether a being capable of creating, even in this limited view, would have exercised his creative powers but once, and that not until a few thousands years since? Credat qui posset, non ego. Who can tell what may have been the successive creations, durations, and, possibly, destructions of those worlds which we see, and of others, of which the inhabitants of this earth have never heard, whose light has not yet reached us since their creation, though coming at the rate of nearly twelve millions of miles in a minute?

Finally: A succession of creative acts, whose commencement runs back almost parallel with eternity, and will extend forward almost ad infinitum, seems to comport best with the eternal, immense, and immutable activity, energy, and goodness of the Divine Being.]

The word created means, that God caused that to exist which, previously to this moment, had no being. The Rabbins, who are legitimate judges in a case of verbal criticism on their own language, are unanimous in asserting, that the word ברא bara expresses the commencement of the existence of a thing, or its egression from nonentity to entity. It does not, in its primary meaning, denote the preserving or new forming things that had previously existed, as some imagine; but creation, in the proper sense of the term, though it has some other acceptations in other places. The supposition that God formed all things out of a pre-existing eternal nature, is certainly absurd: for, if there was an eternal nature besides an eternal God, there must have been two self-existing, independent, and eternal Beings, which is a most palpable contradiction. Ex nihilo nihil fit, “That out of nothing, nothing is produced” is a maxim that applies itself in every case where Deity is not concerned; it was the main argument used by Aristotle and his followers, but is completely refuted by the authority of Divine revelation. God created את השמים ואת הארץ eth hashamayim veet haarets, “the heavens and the earth.” The word את eth, which is generally considered as a particle, simply denoting that the word following is in the accusative or oblique case, is often understood by the Rabbins in a much more extensive sense, “The particle את eth,” says Aben Ezra, “signifies the substance of the thing.” The like definition is given by Kimchi in his Book of Roots. “This particle,” says Mr. Ainsworth, “having the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet in it, is supposed to comprise the sum and substance of all things.” “The particle את eth,” says Buxtorf, Talmudic Lexicon sub voce, “with the Cabalists, is often mystically put for the beginning and the end, as Α alpha and Ω omega are in the Apocalypse.” On this ground, these words should be translated, “God in the beginning created the substance of the heavens, and the substance of the earth: i.e. the prima materia, or first elements, out of which the heavens and the earth were successively formed.”23

During the first state of things, Moses informs us, that “the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The original terms תהו tohoo, and בהו bohoo, translated, “without form and void,” convey the idea of confusion and disorder. The translation by Paginus, is desert and emptiness; in the Vulgate, it is empty and void; in the Septuagint, invisible and incomposed; from the Syriac, desert and uncultivated; the Samaritan is the same as the Vulgate; the Arabic, covered with abysses: these translations are allowed by the learned Walton. There is but little difference in their real meaning, and all the Versions express the first state of things.24 The whole collection of matter, created in a fluid state, was a crude, indigested chaos: all belonging to our system, as the sun, moon, stars, earth, and seas, lay blended together in one vast, confused mass, without any arrangement of their constituent particles, heavy and light, dense and rare, fluid and solid, being all mixed together; air, water, and earth, (which have since obtained the name of elements,) were promiscuously scattered throughout.

The chaotic mass remained in this primitive state, till God was pleased to assimilate, assort, and arrange the materials,—out of which he built up, in the space of six days, the whole of creation.25 The Spirit of God, represented us sitting upon the vast abyss, like a bird, while either in the act of incubation or fostering its young, moved or brooded upon the face of the waters, communicating, by his vital energy, life and motion to the unformed chaos.

Some writers understand by רוח אלהימ the Spirit of God, a “mighty sweeping wind,” a “tremendous tempest,” separating diversified particles of the elementary principles of matter, and combining those of the same kind together. But this is making an effect to be produced by a cause, which, as yet, had no existence; nor, as a cause, is it sufficient to produce so great an effect. To make an effect superior to its cause, is as absurd and contradictory as to say, a long line and a short one are equal. That the single Hebrew word רוח ruach, the Greek πνευμα pneuma, the Latin spiritus, and the ancient Saxon ghost or gast, signifies wind, as well as the vital breath, the soul of man, a created spirit good or evil, is readily admitted. But concerning the phrase רוח אלהימ, the Spirit of God, so frequently used in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, there is not one instance that it signifies wind, and to attempt to force such meaning upon it, is a most manifest violation done to the text. By the Spirit of God, is meant the third subsistence in the Divine essence, distinguished from the person of the Father, and that of the Son; he is called a Spirit, to signify his spiritual and immaterial nature, as well as to express his mighty agency; and the works of which he is the author can only be effected by an omnipotent power.

Milton, who was well versed in the Hebrew language, in his address to the Holy Spirit, says,

CHAPTER II. FIRST DAY.

Section I.—Chaos.

CHAPTER II.
FIRST DAY.