Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

collected that whatsoever dependeth of it must be as necessary and eternal, even as light must be as ancient as the sun, and a shadow as an opacous body in that light. If then there be no instant imaginable before which God was not infinitely good, then can there likewise be none conceivable before which the World was not made. And thus they thought the goodness of the Creator must stand or fall with the eternity of the creature.

For the clearing of which ancient mistake, we must observe, that as God is essentially and infinitely good without any mixture of deficiency, so is he in respect of all external actions or emanations absolutely free without the least necessity. Those bodies which do act without understanding or preconception of what they do, as the sun and fire give light and heat, work always to the utmost of their power, nor are they able at any time to suspend their action. To conceive any such necessity in the divine operations, were to deny all knowledge in God, to reduce him into a condition inferior to some of the works of his own hands, and to fall under the censure contained in the Psalmist's question, "He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know?" (Psal. xciv. 9, 10.) Those creatures who are endued with understanding, and consequently with a will, may not only be necessitated in their actions by a greater power, but also as necessarily be determined by the proposal of an infinite good: whereas neither of these necessities can be acknowledged in God's actions, without supposing a power beside and above omnipotency, or a real happiness beside and above all-sufficiency. Indeed if God were a necessary agent in the works of creation, the creatures would be of as necessary a being as he is; whereas the necessity of being is the undoubted prerogative of the first cause. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will," (Ephes. i. 11.) saith the apostle : and wheresoever counsel is, there is election, or else it is

my conjecture is no more than this: Proclus acknowledgeth that Plutarch and others, though with Plato they maintained the goodness of God to be the cause of the World, yet withal they denied the eternity of it: and when he quotes other expositors for his own opinion, he produceth none but Porphyrius and Iamblichus, the eldest of which was the scholar of Plotinus the disciple of Ammonius. And that he was of the opinion, I collect from him who was his scholar both in philosophy and divinity, that is, Origen, whose judgment, if it were not else where apparent, is sufficiently known by the fragment of Methodius Tepi

yevvrov, preserved in Photius. "Ori d Ωριγένης, ὃν κένταυρον καλεῖ, ἔλεγε συναΐδιον εἶναι τῷ μόνῳ σοφῷ καὶ ἀπροσδεεῖ 0ε Tò Tav. [Vid. p. 101. col. 2.] Being then Porphyrius and Iamblichus cited by Proclus, being Hierocles, Proclus, and Salustius, were all either Ex Tns iεpãs yevεãs, as they called it, that is, descended successively from the School of Ammonius (the great conciliator of Plato and Aristotle, and reformer of the ancient philosophy), or at least contemporary to them that were so; it is most probable that they might receive it from his mouth, especially considering that even Origen a Christian confirmed the same.

vain; where a will, there must be freedom, or else it is weak. We cannot imagine that the all-wise God should act or produce any thing but what he determineth to produce; and all his determinations must flow from the immediate principle of his will. If then his determinations be free, as they must be coming from that principle, then must the actions which follow them be also free. Being then the goodness of God is absolutely perfect of itself, being he is in himself infinitely and eternally happy, and this happiness as little capable of augmentation as of diminution; he cannot be thought to look upon any thing without himself as determining his will to the desire, and necessitating to the production of it. If then we consider God's goodness, he was moved; if his all-sufficiency, he was not necessitated: if we look upon his will, he freely determined if on his power, by that determination he created the World.

Wherefore that ancient conceit of a necessary emanation of God's goodness in the eternal creation of the World will now easily be refuted, if we make a distinction in the equivocal notion of goodness. For if we take it as it signifieth a rectitude and excellency of virtue and holiness, with a negation of all things morally evil, vicious, or unholy,' so God is absolutely and necessarily good: but if we take it in another sense, as indeed they did who made this argument, that is, rather for beneficence, or communicativeness of some good to others; then God is not necessarily, but freely, good, that is to say, profitable and beneficial. For he had not been in the least degree evil or unjust, if he had never made the World or any part thereof, if he had never communicated any of his perfections by framing any thing beside himself. Every proprietary therefore being accounted master of his own, and thought freely to bestow whatever he gives; much more must that one eternal and independent Being be wholly free in the communicating his own perfections without any necessity or obligation. We must then look no farther than the determination of God's will in the creation of the World.

For this is the admirable power of God, that with him to will is to effect, to determine is to perform. So the elders speak before him that sitteth upon the throne; "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure (that is, by thy will) they are and were created." (Rev. iv. 11.) Where there is no resistance in the object, where no need of preparation, application, or instrumental advantage in the agent, there the actual determination of the will is a sufficient production. Thus God did make the heavens and the earth by willing them to be.* This was his first command unto the creatures, and their existence was their first obedience. "Let there be light,"+ this yeyεvñola. Protrept. c. 4. fin.

* So Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of God: Ψιλῷ τῷ βούλεσθαι δημιουργεῖ, καὶ τῷ μόνον ἐθελῆσαι αὐτὸν ἕπεται τὸ

† Γενηθήτω φῶς, καὶ τὸ πρόσταγμα ἔργον ἦν. S. Basil. in Hexaem. Homil.

is the injunction; "and there was light," that is the creation. Which two are so intimately and immediately the same, that though in our and * other translations those words, let there be, which express the command of God, differ from the other there was, which denote the present existence of the creature; yet in the original there is no difference at all, neither in point nor letter. And yet even in the diversity of the translation the phrase seems so expressive of God's infinite power, and immediate efficacy of his will, that it hath raised some admiration of Moses in the + enemies of the religion both of the Jews and Christians. "God is in the heavens, he hath done whatsoever he pleased," saith David; (Psal. cxv. 3.) yea, in the making of the heavens; he therefore created them, because "he pleased;" nay, more, he thereby created them, even by willing their creation.

Now although some may conceive the creature might have been produced from all eternity by the free determination of God's will, and it is so far certainly true, that there is no instant assignable before which God could not have made the World; yet as this is an Article of our faith, we are bound to believe the heavens and the earth are not eternal. "Through faith we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God." (Heb. xi. 3.) And by that faith we are assured, that whatsoever possibility of an eternal existence of the creature may be imagined, actually it had a temporal beginning; and therefore all the arguments for this World's eternity are nothing but so many erroneous misconceptions. "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old, (saith Wisdom). I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was:" (Prov. viii. 22, 23.) And the same Wisdom of God being made man, reflecteth upon the same priority, saying, "Now, Ŏ Father, glorify thou me with thine ownself, with the glory which I had with thee before the World was." (John xvii. 5.) Yea, in the same Christ are we "blessed with all spiritual blessings, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the World." (Ephes. i. 3, 4.) The

ii. §. 7. Ὅταν δὲ φωνὴν θεοῦ καὶ ῥῆμα καὶ πρόσταγμα λέγωμεν, τὴν ἐν τῷ θελήματι ῥοπὴν ἡγούμεθα ἐν εἴδει προστάγματος σχηματίζεσθαι. Id. ibid. Τίνος ὑπουργίας δέοιτο ὁ θελήματι μόνον δημιουργῶν, ὁμοῦ τῇ βουλήσει συνυφισταμένης τῆς κτίσεως; Id. l. ii, adv. Eunom. §. 21.

* Ας γενηθήτω φῶς, καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς, Fiat lux, et facta est lux: or as Aquila, γενέσθω, καὶ ἐγένετο, as Symmachus, ἔστω, καὶ ἐγένετο, all with a difference: whereas in the Hebrew it is a most expressive and significant tautology,

יהי אור ויהי אור.

ὕψους, Sect. 9. Ταύτῃ καὶ ὁ τῶν Ἰου δαίων θεσμοθέτης, οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν ἀνὴρ, ἐπειδὴ τὴν τοῦ θείου δύναμιν κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ἐγνώρισε καξέφηνεν, εὐθὺς ἐν τῇ εἰσβολῇ γράψας τῶν νόμων, Εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς, φησί· τί; γενέσθω φῶς, καὶ ἐγένετο γενέσθω γῆ, καὶ ἐγένετο. Where observe, Longinus made use of the translation of Aquila.

† Πάντα ὅσα ἠθέλησεν ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ· ὁρᾷς ὅτι οὐχὶ πρὸς τὴν δημιουργίαν τῶν ἐν τῇ γῇ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὴν κτίσιν τῶν ἄνω δυνάμεων ἤρκεσεν ἡ θέλησις αὐτοῦ μόνη. S. Chrysost. l. ii. περὶ τοῦ ἀκατα

+ As Dionysius Longinus, TEρi λýπTOV.

impossibility of the origination of a circular motion, which we are sure is either in the heaven or earth, and the impropriety of the beginning of time, are so poor exceptions, that they deserve not the least labour of refutation. The actual eternity of this World is so far from being necessary, that it is of itself most improbable; and without the infallible certainty of faith, there is no single person carries more evidences of his youth, than the World of its novelty.*

It is true indeed, some ancient accounts there are which would persuade us to imagine a strange antiquity of the World, far beyond the annals of Moses, and account of the same Spirit which made it. The + Egyptian priests pretended an exact chronology for some myriads of years, and the Chaldeans or + Assyrians far outreckon them, in which they delivered not only a catalogue of their kings, but also a table of the § eclipses of the sun and moon.

But for their number of years nothing is more certain than their forgery; for the Egyptians did preserve the antiquities of other nations as well as their own, and by the evident fallacy in others have betrayed their own vanity. When Alexander entered Egypt with his victorious army, the priests could shew him out of their sacred histories an account of the Persian empire, which he gained by conquest, and the Macedonian, which he received by birth, of each for eight thousand years; whereas nothing can be more certain, * As even Lucretius confesseth, twenty-three thousand years from the and that out of the principles of Epicurus, 1. v. 331.

[blocks in formation]

reign of the first king of Egypt to the expedition of Alexander; and Diogenes Laertius out of other authors more than doubles that account: Alγύπτιοι μὲν γὰρ Νείλου γενέσθαι παῖδα Ηφαιστον, ὃν ἄρξαι φιλοσοφίας, ἧς τοὺς προεστῶτας ἱερέας εἶναι καὶ προφήτας, ἀπὸ δὲ τούτου εἰς ̓Αλέξανδρον τὸν Μακέδονα ἐτῶν εἶναι μυριάδας τέσσαρας, καὶ ὀκτακισχίλια ὀκτακόσια ἔτη ἑξήκοντα rpía: forty-eight thousand eight hundred and sixty-three. Proam. p. 1.

† Ασσύριοι δὲ, φησὶν Ιάμβλιχος, οὐχ ἑπτὰ καὶ εἴκοσι μυριάδας ἐτῶν μόνας ἐτήρησαν, ὥς φησιν Ιππαρχος, ἀλλὰ και ὅλας ἀποκαταστάσεις καὶ περιόδους τῶν ἑπτὰ κοσμοκρατόρων μνήμῃ παρέδοσαν. Proclus in Timæum.

+ Plato tells us of an account which an Egyptian priest gave to Solon, in which the Athenians were nine thousand years old, and those of Sais eight thousand: Iporéρav μèv rηv πap' iμîv ἔτεσι χιλίοις ἐκ Γῆς τε καὶ Ηφαίστου τὸ σπέρμα προλαβοῦσα ὑμῶν, τὴν δὲ ὑστές ραν· τῆς δὲ ἐνθάδε διακοσμήσεως παρ' ἡμῖν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν ὀκτακισχιλίων ἐτῶν ἀριθμὸς γέγραπται. In Timæo, p. 293. Pomponius Mela makes a larger account out of Herodotus, l. i. c. 5. Ipsi vetustissimi (ut prædicant) hominum trecentos et triginta reges ante Amasim, et supra tredecim millium annorum ætates certis Annalibus:' This fallacy appeareth by an episwhere, as the Egyptians much stretch tle which Alexander wrote to his mothe truth, so doth Mela stretch the ther Olympias, mentioned by Athenarelation of Herodotus, who makes it goras, Minutius Felix, St. Cyprian, not thirteen thousand, but eleven and St. Augustin. 'Persarum autem thousand three hundred and forty et Macedonum imperium usque ad years. Diodorus Siculus tells us of ipsum Alexandrum, cui loquebatur,

§ Εν οἷς ἡλίου μὲν ἐκλείψεις γενέσθαι τριακοσίας ἑβδομήκοντα τρεῖς, σελήνης δὲ ὀκτακοσίους τριάκοντα δύο. Diog. Laert. Proœm. p. 1.

out of the best historical account, than that the Persian empire, whether begun in Cyrus or in Medus, was not then three hundred years old, and the Macedonian, begun in Coranus, not five hundred. They then who made so large additions to advance the antiquity of other nations, and were so bold as to present them to those who so easily might refute them (had they not delighted to be deceived to their own advantage, and taken much pleasure in an honourable cheat), may without any breach of charity be suspected to have extended the account much higher for the honour of their own country. Beside, their catalogues must needs be ridiculously incredible, when the Egpytians make the first kings' reigns above twelve hundred years a-piece,* and the Assyrians theirs about forty thousand: except we take the Egyptian years for

plus quam octo millium annorum ille constituit; cum apud Græcos Macedonum usque ad mortem Alexandri quadringenti octoginta quinque reperiantur anni, Persarum vero, donec ipsius Alexandri victoria finiretur, ducenti et triginta tres computentur.' S. August. de Civ. Dei, l. xii. c. 10.

As Diodorus Siculus, I. i. p. 22. ed. Rhod. p. 15. Steph. takes notice of the Egyptians, and Abydenus of the Chaldeans, whose ten first kings reigned one hundred and twenty Sari. Ὡς τοὺς πάντας εἶναι βασιλεῖς δέκα· ὧν ὁ χρόνος τῆς βασιλείας συνῆξε σάρους ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι. ΝNow this word σάρος was proper to the Babylonian or Chaldean account. Hesych. Zápos apieμóc Tis πaρà Baßvλwvious, but what this number was he tells us not. In the fragment of Abydenus preserved by Eusebius, Σάρος δέ ἐστιν ἑξακόσια καὶ τρισχίλια ἔτη, every Σάρος is three thousand six hundred years, and consequently the one hundred and twenty capo belonging to the reign of the ten kings four hundred and thirty-two thousand years. Neither was this the account only of Abydenus, but also of Berosus; neither was it the interpretation only of Eusebius, but also of Alexander Polyhistor, who likewise expresseth: τὸν χρόνον τῆς βασιλείας αὐτῶν σάρους ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι, ἤτοι ἐτῶν μυριάδας τεσσαράκοντα τρεῖς καὶ δύο χιXádas. This seemed so highly incredible, that two ancient monks, Anianus and Panodorus, interpreted those Chaldean years to be but days, so that every σápos should consist of three thousand six hundred days, that is, nine years, ten months and a half, and

the whole one hundred and twenty σápoɩ for the ten kings eleven hundred and eighty-three years, six months, and odd days. This is all which Jos. Scaliger, or Jacobus Goar of late, could find concerning this Chaldean computation: and the first of these complains that none but Hesychius makes mention of this account. I shall therefore supply them not only with another author, but also with a diverse and distinct interpretation. Σάροι μέτρον καὶ ἀριθμὸς παρὰ Χαλδαίοις" οἱ γὰρ ρκ' σάροι ποιοῦσιν ἐνιαυτοὺς βακβ' οἳ γίνονται ιή ἐνιαυτοὶ καὶ μῆνες ἕξ· that is, according to the translation of Portus: Sari apud Chaldæos est mensura et numerus: nam 120 Sari faciunt annos 2222, qui sunt anni 18 et sex menses. Well might he fix his N. L. or, non liquet, to these words; for, as they are in the printed books, there is no sense to be made of them; but by the help of the MS. in the Vatican library we shall both supply the defect in Suidas, and find a third valuation of the oάpo. Thus then that MS. represents the words: Οἱ γὰρ ρκ' σάροι ποιοῦσιν ἐνιαυτοὺς βσκβ' κατὰ τὴν Χαλδαίων ψῆφον, εἴπερ ὁ σάρος ποιεῖ μῆνας σεληνιακῶν σκβ', οἳ γίνονται ιή ἐνιαυτοὶ καὶ unves. And so the sense is clear. Σάρος, according to the Chaldee account, comprehends two hundred and twenty-two months, which come to eighteen years and six months; therefore one hundred and twenty σápor make two thousand two hundred and twenty years; and therefore for Bokß, I read, leaving out the last ß, Bok', that is, two thousand two hundred and twenty.

« ZurückWeiter »