mismanaged; and various forms of such a personal covenant have been proposed by different writers of a tendency to mislead Christians as to their method of dealing with God about their souls." Having adverted to the natural propensity of men to rest upon their own covenant or exercise respecting it as the immediate ground of peace, and having observed that a covenant is rightly made only when the conscience is purged from guilt by faith's application of the blood of Christ, and the soul sweetly constrained by the Saviour's love, he thus concludes: "Perhaps for guarding against every old covenant way of it, personal covenanting may be more properly reduced to the pouring out of the heart before God in prayer."* NOTE XLVI. Page 183. Our Author's interpretation of the expression in Heb. xi. 3, rendered worlds, is clearly just, and coincides exactly with the remarks which other men of erudition have made on the term. Michaelis, for example, referring both to Heb. i. 2, and ch. xi. 3, has the following observations upon it. "O dives is constantly used by the Greek writers as a word expressive of time, or as denoting a succession of ages. But in the present instance, the context requires for it a different sense, namely, that of worlds. Now the Jews used their in both senses; for though it literally denotes sæculum, (an age,) yet they frequently applied it in the sense of mundus, (the world.) For instance, they called the earth by how, that is the lower world; to the middle regions they gave the name of n; and the upper regions or the heavens they denoted by by by. In no other instance,” he adds, “ either in the New Testament or in the Septuagint, is this word used in the sense of worlds."+ Dr Owen‡ gives a similar account of the expression, and in confirmation of the Jewish distribution of the worlds, refers to - Kimchi's comment on Isaiah vi. 3; in which that Rabbi thinks proper, fancifully enough, to remark, that it is with a reference to the three worlds that the word Holy is three times repeated by the Seraphim. Grotius and others have strained the term worlds, at least in Heb. i. 3, to signify the new creation, or the Church renewed by the • Sacred Contemplations, Ch. ii. Sect. ii. p. 117. et seq. + Marsh's Translation of the Introduction to the New Testament by the late John David Michaelis, Professor in the University of Gottingen, Vol. iv. p. 235. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Ch. i. 2. VOL. I. 3 R 17. evangelical dispensation. But the futility of this Socinian gloss is irrefragably proved by Owen, Whitby, and Dr Magee. Some writers, it may be noticed in fine, appear to consider is drws in Heb. xi. 3. as comprising not merely the whole system of the universe, but also the revolutions it has experienced, and the events of which it is the scene. Accordingly, Parkhurst on this Greek word observes, that "it seems in Heb. xi. 3. to denote the various revolutions and grand occurrences which have happened to this created system, including also the system or world itself." The system itself, however, is the subject at least directly intended; and this was, without question, the opinion of Macknight, to whom Parkhurst apparently refers as friendly to his own comment. “Ts diuras,” says that author,-" literally secula, the ages. But the subsequent clause, so that things which are seen were not made of things which did appear, determines its signification to the material fabric of the worlds, comprehending the sun, moon, stars, and earth (called by Moses the heaven and the earth, Gen. i. 1.) by whose duration and revolutions, time, consisting of days, and months, and years, and ages, is measured."+ NOTE XLVII. Page 205. The philosopher to whom our Author chiefly alludes in his discussion relative to the infinite extent which has been ascribed to the world, is no doubt Des Cartes. Of this celebrated man it has been justly said, "he obtained immortal honour by overthrowing the philosophy of Aristotle; but no doubt he indulged himself in a freedom of speculation not sufficiently restrained by a becoming regard to the dictates of revelation, or the principles of common sense.” Dr Reid gives the following account of the manner in which he was led to entertain the idea of the world's infinity. "It was probably owing to an aversion to admit any thing into philosophy of which we have not a clear and distinct conception, that Des Cartes was led to deny that there is any substance in matter distinct from those qualities of it which we perceive. We say that matter is something extended, figured, moveable. Extension, figure, mobility, therefore, are not matter, but qualities belonging to this something which we call matter. Des Cartes could not relish this obscure something, which is supposed to be the subject or Discourses and Dissertations on the Scriptural Doctrine of Atonement and Sacrifice, vol. i. Note 1. On the Pre-existence of Christ, and the species of arguments by which this article of the Christian Doctrine has been opposed, pp. 78, 79. A new literal Translation, &c. on Heb. xi. 3. Note 1. substratum of those qualities; and therefore maintained that extension is the very essence of matter. But as we must ascribe extension to space as well as to matter, he found himself under a necessity of holding that space and matter are the same thing, and differ only in our way of conceiving them; so that wherever there is space there is matter, and no void left in the universe. The necessary consequence of this is that the material world has no bounds or limits. He did not, however, choose to call it infinite, but indefinite."* A similar conclusion has been deduced by some men of science from a very different set of premises. The astonishing discoveries supplied by the telescope have so delighted and overwhelmed them, that they can hardly find terms sufficiently strong to express the extent of the creation. Dr Halley, for instance, has advanced what he says seems to be a metaphysical paradox, namely, that the number of fixed stars must be more than finite, and some of them at a greater than a finite distance from others. Addison, after stating that Huygenius "does not think it impossible there may be stars whose light has not yet travelled down to us since their first creation," makes the following remark; "There is no question but the universe has certain bounds set to it; but when we consider that it is the work of infinite power, prompted by infinite goodness, with an infinite space to exert itself in, how can our imagination set any bounds to it ?"+† A living Preacher, who has pursued this lofty speculation with splendid eloquence and uncommon ardour, expresses himself in the following terms." The contemplation has no limits. If we ask the number of suns and of systems-the unassisted eye of man can take in a thousand, and the best telescope which the genius of man has constructed can take in eighty millions. But why subject the domains of the universe to the eye of man, or to the powers of his genius? Fancy may take its flight far beyond the ken of eye or telescope. It may expatiate on the outer regions of all that is visible. -and shall we have the boldness to say that there is nothing there? that the wonders of the Almighty are at an end, because we can no longer trace his footsteps? that his omnipotence is exhausted, because human art can no longer follow him? that the creative energy of God has sunk into repose, because the imagination is enfeebled by the magnitude of its efforts, and can keep no longer on the wing through those mighty tracts which shoot far beyond what eye hath * Dr Reid on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay ii. ch. 8. seen or the heart of man hath conceived-which sweep endlessly along, and merge into an awful and mysterious infinity?" The arguments which Witsius adduces against the hypothesis of Des Cartes, who attributed to the creation an absolute infinity, have doubtless very great weight; and the reader who wishes to learn what a profound philosopher is able to advance on the same side of the question, may consult Locke's "Essay on the Human Understanding."+ Dr Watts' " Philosophical Essays" also contain discussions on the nature and extent of space, the perusal of which will prove at least an entertaining exercise to those who take pleasure in abstract speculation. NOTE XLVIII. Page 207. The learned Author, in the short allusion which he makes to the disputes of chronologers regarding the number of years that has elapsed since the creation, obviously refers to that diversity of opinion upon this point amongst the friends of revelation, which has arisen in a great degree from the discrepancies betwixt the Hebrew copy of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Samaritan, and the Septuagint. The Hebrew copy, which Christians for good reasons now consider as the most authentic, appears to date the creation of the world 3944 years before the birth of Christ. The Samaritan Bible fixes it at 4305. The Septuagint makes it 5270. The calculations of historians and chronologers differ considerably from each other. Josephus, according to Dr Wells and Mr Whiston, makes the period between the creation and the Christian era 4658 years. M. Pezron extends it to 5872. But Archbishop Usher, whose chronology is generally received, makes it 4004.‡ It is a curious fact, that nearly all the celebrated writers in the Christian Church, both in the East and West, neglected the Hebrew computations and adhered to the Greek, till in the century before last some of the Roman authors adopted the Hebrew computations, -not because they were Hebrew, but because they tallied with the Latin Vulgate authorised by the Council of Trent. Jerome and Augustine were the only ancient writers of the Church who computed otherwise; and among the moderns, Beza was the first that questioned the correctness of the Greek chronology. For farther • A series of Discourses on the Christian Revelation viewed in connexion with the Modern Astronomy, by Thomas Chalmers, D. D. Ser. i. + Book ii. ch. 13. "Of space and its simple modes ;" and ch. 15. "Of duration and expansion considered together." See Encycl. Britan. Art. Creation. information respecting this controversy, in so far at least as it relates to the interval betwixt the creation and the deluge, and for an account of the manner in which Cappel has attempted to reconcile the difference between the Hebrew copy and the Septuagint, the reader may consult Shuckford.* Witsius, justly acquiescing in the Hebrew computations, lays it down as a fixed principle, that at the date of his writing this Treatise, viz. in the year 1681, the world had not reached the age of 6000 years. According to the received chronology, more than 170 years are still necessary to complete that period. But a far higher antiquity, it seems proper to mention, has on various pretexts been assigned to the world; and sceptics have, in consequence, urged the contracted limits of the Mosaic chronology, as a strong objection against the Divine inspiration and authority of Scripture. Voltaire, for instance, affirms that the sacred oracles are liable to a great degree of ridicule, because they represent the creation of the world, as having happened only 7000 years ago, while the Chinese trace it back to a much greater number of millions. Halhed, too, the Translator of the Code of Hindoo laws, after detailing the monstrous figments of the Indian Brahmins relative to their four YuGs, or grand periods of the world's existence, and the prodigiously long lives ascribed to their MENUS, thus exclaims; "Computation is lost, and conjecture overwhelmed, in the attempt to adjust such astonishing spaces of time to our confined notions of the world's epoch: to such an antiquity the Mosaic creation is but as yesterday, and to such ages the life of Methuselah is but a span.”+ The absurd superstition and ridiculous vanity of several nations, as of the Egyptians and Chaldeans, as well as the Indians and Chinese, have strikingly appeared in their bold pretensions to an astonishing antiquity. The degree of credit they have met with from some men of science in modern times, is a mortifying proof of human weakness and the power of prejudice. In several instances, however, individuals who were once disposed to admit such pretensions, have at last become ashamed of their credulity, and candidly acknowledged their error. Accordingly, Maurice, in his History of Hindostan, after alluding to the admiration which Mr Halhed had at one time expressed for the Hindoo chronology, proceeds to say of that gentleman, he " has long been convinced of the futility of the claim to unfathomable antiquity of the presumptuous Brahmins." The Sacred and Profane History of the World connected, &c. Vol. i. Book 1. + Quoted by Dr Tennant in his Indian Recreations," Vol. i. sect. 16. + Vol. i. ch. 2. |