over Satan the corruptor of all, and so to restore all things; both of the earth, where he began the restoration, by delivering the elect of mankind from the bondage of corruption; and of heaven, by bringing the same chosen people into the heavenly habitation, in order to its being again re-peopled with that colony of new inhabitants: In this manner he will complete the restoration. Which completion Moses intimates, verse 2. "and on the seventh day God ended his work, which he had made." This finishing of the restoration, signified, verse 3. by the word made, is very distinct from the finishing of the creation, mentioned verse 1. When God had done all this, upon giving his Son to men for a Mediator and redeemer, he himself rested in this his last work, as this is "the man of his delight," Isa. xlii. 1. And this rest was the only foundation for instituting the sabbath. This institution

consists of a twofold act: the first is of blessing, by which God blessed that very day, by a most distinguishing privilege, to be the day devoted to the Messiah, who was revealed in it by the Gospel. For this is the honour of the sabbath, that it is the delight, on account of the holy of the Lord being glorified," Isa. lviii. 13. The other act is that of sanctification, by which he set it apart for a sign and memorial of that benefit, because through and for the holy of the Lord, he chooses to sanctify the elect. This is the sum of that opinion. Let us now consider whether it be solid, and can be proved by scripture.

XX. The whole foundation of this opinion is, that Adam fell on the very day in which he was created which the scripture no where says. I know that some Jewish doctors, with boldness, as is their way, assert this ; and, as if they were perfectly acquainted with what God was about every hour, declare, that man was created the third hour of the day, fell the eleventh, and was expelled Paradise the twelfth. But this rashness is to be treated with indignation. The learned person deems it his glory to be wise from the scriptures alone, and justly, for thus it becomes a divine. But what portion of scripture determines any thing about the first sin? We have here scarce any more than bare conjectures, which at best are too sandy a foundation, on which any wise architect will ever presume to build so grand an edifice.

XXI. Nay there are many things from which we rather incline to think that man's sin happened not on the sixth day. For it was after God had on that day created the beasts; after he had formed Adam of the dust of the earth; after he had prescribed him the law concerning the tree of knowledge

of

of good and evil; after he had presented to him the beasts in Paradise, that, upon enquiring into the nature of each (which also he performed with great accuracy, as the great Bochart has very learnedly shewn, Hierozoic. lib. 1. c. 9.) he might call each by their proper names; after Adam had found there was not among them any help meet for him, for the purposes and convenience of marriage; and after God had cast Adam into a deep sleep, and then at last formed Eve from one of his ribs. All these things are not of a nature to be performed like the other works of the preceding-days, in the shortest space of time possible, and as it were, in a moment; but succeeded one another in distinct periods, and during these, several things must have been done by Adam himself. Nay there are divines of no small note, who insist that these things were not all done in one day, and others postpone the crea tion of Eve to one of the days of the following week but we do not now engage in these disputes. After all these things the world was yet innocent, and free from all guilt, at least on the part of man. And God contemplating his works, and concluding his day, approved of all as very good and beautiful. He had yet no new labour for restoring the fallen world, which would have been no ways inferior to the work of the creation. But what probability is there, that in those very few hours which remained, if yet a single hour remained, Adam should have parted from Eve, who had been just created, exposed his most beloved consort to an insidious serpent, and that both of them, just from the hands of the Creator, should so suddenly have given ear to the deceiver? Unless one is prepossessed in favour of the contrary opinion, what reason could he have, notwithstanding so many probabilities to the contrary, prematurely thus to hurry on Adam's sin? Since therefore the whole of this foundation is so very weak, what solid superstructure can we imagine it is capable of?

XXII. Let us now take a nearer view of the superstructure itself, and examine whether its construction be sufficiently firm and compact. The very learned person imagines he sees a new labour, or work on the seventh day, and a new rest succeeding that labour, which is the foundation of the sabbath. The labour was a promise of the Messiah, by which the world, miserably polluted with sin, was to be restored; and that Moses treats on this, chap. ii. 2. " and on the seventh day God ended his work, which he had made." The rest was the satisfaction and delight he had in that promise, and in the Messiah promised. But let us offer the following considerations

considerations in opposition to this sentiment: 1st, If God, on the seventh day, performed the immense work of recovering the world from the fall, a work, which if not greater, yet certainly is not less than the creation of the world out of nothing, and he was again to rest when he had finished it; certainly then, the seventh day was as much a day of work to God, and no more a sabbath or day of rest, than any of the preceding days. For God having finished the work of each day, rested for a while and delighted in it. 2dly, Moses in the second verse makes use of the same word by which he had expressed the finishing of the world in the first. But the finishing in the first verse, as the learned person himself owns, relates to the finishing of the creation; what necessity then can there be for giving such different senses to one and the same word, in the same context, when there is not the least mark of distinction. 3dly, Hitherto Moses has not given the least imaginable hint of the fall of our first parents: is it then probable that he would so abruptly mention the restitution of the world from the fall; and that in the very same words which he had just used, and was afterwards to use for explaining the first creation? What can oblige, or who can suf. fer us to confound the neatness of Moses's method, and the perspicuity of his words, by this feigned irregularity and ambiguity? 4thly, It may be doubted whether we can properly say, that by the promise of the Messiah all things were perfected and finished; since God, if we follow the thread of Moses's narrative, did, after this promise, punish the world with a deserved curse and the Apostle still says of the world, that "the creature was made subject to vanity, and groans under the bondage of corruption," Rom. viii. 20. 21. It is indeed true that the promise of the Messiah, which could not be frustrated, was the foundation of the comfort of. the fathers; but the scripture no where declares that by this promise, as immediately made after the fall, all things were finished, nay, even this promise pointed out that person, who after many ages, and by various acts, not of one and the same office, was to effect the true consummation.

XXIII. Our learned author urges the following reason: why those two finishings are not to be looked upon as the same. 1st, It would be a tautology, if not an inexcusable battology or idle repetition, in such a compendious narrative; and either the first verse, or the beginning of the second would be superfluous. 2dly, The finishing or ending of verse 2. is annexed to the seventh day, by a double article in the same manner as the rest is. "And on the very seventh day

God

זישבת

God ended his work which he had made, and he rested on the very seventh day from all his work which he had made." So that if the former verb be rendered by the preterpluperfect, and he had ended, the latter must be rendered so too, and he had rested; but this is incongruous. Nay, since on the other days we reject the preterpluperfect sense, least the works of the following day should be referred to those of the preceding, contrary to historical truth; it ought not then here to be admitted on the seventh day. 3dly, When the third verse shews the cause of this rest, it speaks of distinct finishings, the latter of which is that of the seventh day, "and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work, which God

created and made." By two verbs he describes two actions; denotes to create, and y, to adorn, tơ pólish: these words are frequently of the same import, yet when joined together they are to be distinguished, as is owned not only by Christian, but by Jewish interpreters. (Thus it is, Isa. xliii. 7. where another word is added, T', to form, and, as to all the three, certainly signifies, the creation of the soul, but, the formation of the body, and y, reformation by grace.) But these two actions are so described, that my, making, immediately precedes resting, and was the work of the seventh day; but , creation, the work of the six preceding days. 4thly, To the same purpose is the recapitulation of verse 4. which repeats and confirms the distinction just now mentioned: "these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created; in the day 'that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Thus he recites the generations both of the first six days, (in which the heavens and the earth, with their respective hosts, were created) and of the beginning of that one day, namely, the seventh, which is that of operation, in which he made and polished, inverting the order; first the earth, then the heavens. Thus far our very learned author.

XXIV. But we cannot assent to those things, and therefore we answer each in order. To the first, I would earnestly entreat our brother, both to think and speak more reverently of the stile of the Holy Ghost; nor charge those simple. and artless repetitions of one and the same thing, even in a concise narrative, with an inexcusable tautology, if not a battology, or vain and useless repetitions. It does not become us, the humble disciples of the Divine Spirit, to criticise on the most learned language, and the most pure stile of our adorable master. It is very frequent, in the sacred writings, more than once to repeat the same thing, in almost the same. words, at no great distance asunder. This very second chapVOL. I.

ter

ter of Genesis, of which we now treat, gives us various examples of this. The reason of the sanctification of the seventh day; namely, the rest of God upon that day, is proposed in nearly the same words, in the second and third verses. This learned person himself calls the fourth verse a recapitulation of what was just said. And what is the whole of the second chapter, but a fuller explication of the formation of man, which indeed we have plainly, but more briefly related in the first chapter, or the whole of the second, is in a great measure superfluous? Or, shall we dare to charge God with tautologies, if not with inexcusable battologies? Is it not more becoming to tremble with awe at his words, and rather return him thanks, that on account of the dulness of our apprehension he has vouchsafed to propose two or three times the same truths, either in the same, or in a variety of words, having all the same meaning? For my own part I would act in this manner without any doubt of acting as becomes.

XXV. To the second, I would answer. Ist, The words of Moses may be taken in this sense; namely, that God finished the work of the sixth day, and consequently of all the six days, in the very moment in which the seventh began. Thus the ancient Hebrews, and after them, R. Solomon, explains this manner of speaking; as thereby to intimate that God, in the very moment in which he entered on the Sabbath, finished his work; for God alone knows the moments and least parts of time in another manner than men do. zdly, Nor is it an improper observation of Aben Ezra, that the finishing of the work is not the work itself, but only means the ceasing from work, and that the text explains itself thus, and be finished, that is, and be rested; having finished his work, he worked no longer. 3dly, But we need not insist on this: Drusius speaks to excellent purpose on this place: "The preterperfect Hebrew may be as well rendered by the preterpluperfect as otherwise. It is really so: the Hebrews have only one preterperfect, which they use for every kind of past time; and therefore according to the connection, it may be rendered sometimes by the preterperfect, and at other times by the preterpluperfect." Let it therefore be rendered here by the preterpluperfect, and he had finished, as the Dutch translation has also done, and all the difficulty will disappear. Our learned author may insist, that if this be granted, then the following na must be also rendered by the preterpluperfect. But it does not follow; for we are to consider the nature of the subject and the different circumstances. The learned person insists, that the word finishing; is used in a different sense in the first, from what it is in the second verse; and shall we not be allowed to interpret a preterperfect