for many ages it has been allowed by sensible men, that “there is
nothing in the understanding which is not first perceived by some of
the senses.” The imagination is the place where the images of things
are first engendered, and from which they are transferred to the
understanding. And therefore those who want any sense, cannot have the
least knowledge or idea of the objects peculiar to that sense: as they
who never had sight, have not the least conception of light or colors.
But there is a great difference between our senses, considered as the
avenues of knowledge. Some of them have a narrow sphere of action:
others a more extensive one. By _feeling_ we discern only those objects
which touch some part of our body; and consequently this sense extends
only to a small number of objects. Our senses of _taste_ and _smell_
extend to fewer still. But, on the other hand, our nobler sense of
_hearing_ has a wide sphere of action: especially in the case of loud
sounds, as thunder, the roaring of the sea, or the discharge of cannon:
the last of which sounds has been frequently heard at the distance
of near a hundred miles. Yet the space to which the hearing itself
extends is small, compared to that through which the _sight_ extends.
This sense takes in at one view, not only the most unbounded prospects
on earth, but also the moon, and the other planets, the sun, yea, the
fixed stars, though at such an immeasurable distance.
But still none of our senses can reach beyond the bounds of this
visible world. They supply us with such knowledge of the material
world, as answers all the purposes of life. But as this was the design
for which they were given, beyond this they cannot go. They furnish
us with no information at all, concerning the _invisible world_.
But the wise and gracious Governor of the worlds, both visible and
invisible, has prepared a remedy for this defect. He has favored us
with a _revelation_, concerning himself, his existence, perfections,
and will; and another world, its nature, certainty, and duration: and
this revelation is contained in the Scriptures. And he has appointed
_faith_ to supply the defect of sense; to take us up where sense sets
us down, and help us over the great gulf. Its office begins where that
of sense ends. Sense is the evidence of things that are seen; of the
visible, the material world, and the several parts of it. Faith, on
the other hand, is the “evidence of things not seen,” of the invisible
world: of all these invisible things, which are revealed in the Oracles
of God.[201] Though eternal things come not within the reach of sense,
yet, by faith, they are as present to the mind, in their reality,
excellence, and continuance, as if they were seen with the eye of the
body. The testimony of the God of truth, is the foundation and reason
of this faith; for what he says must be true, because he cannot lie:
this is a principle concerning which all agree who own his existence.
The soul has a vast intellectual capacity; for the knowledge of God,
nature, providence, the original and present state of man, the visible
world, sublime speculations, and useful discoveries, come within its
comprehension. It can reason, infer, reflect, and carry on a chain of
thoughts, with perspicuity and close connection, concerning things. Its
powers take in objects of all dimensions; yet they are not situated
as bodies in a material place, where the greater occupy more space
than the less: for the thought of a mile, or ten thousand miles, does
no more fill or stretch the soul, than that of a foot, an inch, or a
mathematical point. And whereas all matter has its parts, and those
extended, one without another, into length, breadth, and thickness, and
so is measurable by inches, yards, or solid measures; there is nothing
of measurable extension in any thing belonging to the soul, neither
length, breadth, nor thickness; nor is it possible to form an idea of
a foot of thought, a yard of reason, a pound of wisdom, or a quart of
virtue.[202] The soul is capable of abstract notions, mathematical and
metaphysical conceptions. Its powers are so great, that we can explore
nature, span the surface of the earth, dive into its capacious seas,
and there discover the numerous inhabitants of the watery world. We
can travel to the sun, continue our journey through our own spherical
system, from planet to planet, tell their dimensions, measure their
distances, and accompany them through their various revolutions. We can
pass the boundaries of our own, and enter into other systems; and from
thence, into eternity itself: ascending from region to region, from
world to world, from the creature till we reach the abode of the great
Creator, who is the first cause of all things; and then, with ravished
eyes, gaze on that glorious Luminary of the moral world, till we are
amazed, delighted, and overpowered, with the splendor of his infinite
perfections.
The soul is _immortal_ in its duration: it once began to be, but will
never cease to exist. When the whole of time is elapsed, it will live
in the vigorous exercise of its active powers, and its existence run
parallel with eternity. The death of the soul cannot be effected by the
operation of second causes; and God, who is the first cause, will never
annihilate it. The Sadducees denied the immateriality and immortality
of the soul, saying, that, except God, there was no spirit: they were
much like the Epicureans among the Gentile philosophers. In refutation
of this Sadducean notion, our Saviour referred them to the five Books
of Moses, which they acknowledged as of Divine authority, where God
says, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob.” Abraham had been dead upwards of 300 years when these words
were spoken to Moses. Now, says our Saviour, “God is not the God of
the dead, but of the living.” Though the bodies of these renowned
patriarchs had been long dead, and ceased to exist among mortals, their
souls were still living, not only in a future state, but with God.
He also warned his disciples of the opposition they would meet with,
in the faithful discharge of their religious and ministerial duties,
from the prejudice, rage, and fury of men; but urged them to take
courage, and not suffer themselves to be intimidated, so as to neglect
in any degree the execution of the important commission he had given
them, saying, “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to
kill the soul.” Hence the soul is a principle distinct from the body,
actually survives it, and can subsist without it, not only retaining
its vital existence, but its consciousness, reflection, and activity.
The following lines of Addison are strongly and beautifully descriptive
of the immortality of the soul:
“The soul, secure in her existence, smiles
At dissolution, and defies its power.
The stars shall fade away, the sun himself
Grow dim with age, and nature sink in years;
But thou shalt flourish in immortal youth--
Unhurt, amidst the war of elements,
The wreck of matter, and the crash of worlds.”
In a word, since the soul is not material, it can have no parts; if it
have no parts, then it cannot be separated; if it cannot be separated,
then it cannot be dissolved; if it cannot be dissolved, then it is
incorruptible; and if it be incorruptible, then it is immortal.
Thus it is evident, from all the perceptions of the soul, that it
is not compounded like the body. Those powers and affections, such
as thought and reason, judgment and liberty, love and hatred, joy
and sorrow, can never be the properties or effects of matter, in any
possible variation or modification of its parts. Nor can matter ever
produce those noble and just sentiments, those sublime and generous
affections, to which the soul sometimes rises in its contemplations of
God, the phenomena of the universe, and the operation of Providence
which sustains and governs all things. All this can never be produced
by matter, which is altogether inactive of itself; and when motion
is impressed on it, the only change produced is in the situation and
contexture of its parts. Surely all attempts to account for these
things, by any laws of nature known in the corporeal world, are
absolutely ridiculous.
How strange is it then, that such a spiritual being should be united so
closely to flesh and blood, imprisoned in a tenement of clay, and use
the body as the instrument of active operations.--Several philosophers,
among whom is Socrates, have called the body της ψυχης οικητηριον, _the
habitation of the soul_; yea, φυλακη και ταφος, her moveable _prison_,
and living _sepulchre_. These two essential parts of man, which God,
at his creation, united so closely together, that both make but one
person, is a great mystery; considering the different natures that
adhere, soul and body, matter and spirit. All this is unintelligible
to the human intellect, however improved and capacious. The disputers
of this world will find themselves completely perplexed, in attempting
to explain by what ties a spirit is united to a piece of clay; and
what holds it confined to its habitation. The adhesion of the material
particles in the human body, the flame of animal life kindled and
burning clear and strong within us, and the union of spirit and matter,
so that the one is the tenement of the other, and the instrument of
its operations, are, as to their manner, mysterious, and attended with
difficulties that would perplex and confound the most penetrating and
sagacious mind.
Man then was created in the _natural_ image of God, which consisted
chiefly in the spiritual nature, amazing powers, and immortality of
his soul; like God, it is a _spirit_, immaterial, invisible, active,
intelligent, free, and immortal: and partly, in a lower sense, in the
privilege of his body, which, in his state of innocence, was, by the
promise of his Creator, entitled to a gratuitous immortality. Some
make reason or understanding to be the image in which God created man:
but, though this may be included, yet, it is not the principal thing
intended by the Divine _image_: for if rationality were the image, it
could never be lost. Sin, which defaces this beautiful image, does not
deprive man of intellect: his nature will for ever continue rational;
he can never, I presume, be deprived of his reason so as not to possess
it any more. Thought and consciousness are inseparable from the nature
of man, and therefore this _image_ of God in which Adam was created,
must be something distinct from reason. Indeed reasonable creatures
only can be the subjects of it, but reason is not the thing itself.
To suppose that mere reason is God’s image in man, is an hypothesis
unworthy of a reasonable nature; and with how much confidence soever
some assert, the assertion is reproachful to our Maker.
The chief thing intended by the Divine _image_, is moral rectitude;
man was created in the _moral image_ of God; but that image in man
was only a _likeness_, it did not equal, but resembled its high
original--a disparity which necessarily exists between a creature
and its Creator. According to any rational opinion we can form of
God, we must believe that he is a spiritual Being; which includes the
simplicity of his nature, his indivisibility, and his immortality;
possessed not only of every natural perfection, but of all moral
excellencies. He is not only an intelligent, omnipresent, omniscient,
almighty Being, but wise, holy, righteous, and good. Without moral
perfections, his character would not be very interesting to us. If he
had no radical and constitutional principle in his nature that could
move him to regard the temper of our minds, and the complexion of our
actions, or cause him to be either pleased or displeased with our
behavior, however conducted, we should have no reason to act either
from motives of love or fear of him. His natural attributes alone, are
very far from finishing his character; in conjunction with these, his
moral excellencies complete his glory, exhibit him as the most perfect
Agent, and render him in the most exalted sense our Governor. His
holiness, justice, goodness, and truth, are called moral attributes,
or communicable perfections; because we can trace some resemblance
in angels and men; though there is an infinite disproportion between
these perfections as they exist in God, and are faintly displayed in
the creatures: in him they are infinite, in the creatures finite and
limited.
These moral perfections constitute God a proper object of religious
adoration, and without which no worship would be due or could be
rendered to him. The Divine Nature is the foundation of that worship
which we, as rational beings, are under obligations to perform; and the
revelation of the will of God, with which he has graciously favored us
in the Scripture, is the constant rule of his worship. On believing his
existence, and cultivating the knowledge of his attributes, especially
those which are so astonishingly displayed and harmonized in the
redemption of mankind by Jesus Christ, it very naturally follows, to
every reflecting mind, that we owe him ourselves, and are bound by the
strongest ties to present to him the most spiritual worship of which
our intelligent nature is capable.
The moral image of God, after which man was created, was his greatest
excellence. His _understanding_ possessed a large capacity for
improvement, equal to an extensive and accurate acquaintance with
things both natural and divine, the acquisition of which would
facilitate his own happiness, by rendering him more competent to
answer the benevolent design which his Creator projected in calling
him into existence. This capacity was amply supplied by his Creator;
for all divine knowledge is given by revelation; which he must either
communicate to man, or he must remain ignorant of him. The capacity
is one thing, and its improvement is another; which, as it is not
naturally inherent in man, so it must be acquired. The knowledge of
the nature, perfections, and will of God, can, in the first instance,
only be made known by himself; for there is not a correct notion of him
in the whole intellectual and moral world, but what has been received
from either Divine revelation, or his own immediate influence. Adam,
then, as an intelligent creature, was endued with the knowledge of
God, so far as was necessary to enable him to fear, love, and serve
him. Without a perception of his existence and perfections, and the
knowledge of his will, he could not perform any acts of adoration,
reverence, reliance, regard, and delight, toward him. If therefore
man, in his primitive state, was obliged to worship his Creator (of
which certainly no one can doubt,) it must be granted that he possessed
knowledge equal to the nature and extent of his obligations. In his
state of innocence, he did not perform a blind devotion, or worship he
knew not what. Such ignorance is the consequence of sin; therefore he
could not be the unhappy subject of it before he transgressed.
Some persons have thought that Adam, in his primeval state, understood
the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons or Subsistencies in the Godhead.
Though the knowledge of this important doctrine cannot be attained by
reasoning on the operations of Divine wisdom, power, and goodness,
visibly and conspicuously displayed in the universe; yet, as Adam
received by immediate revelation some truths, why may we not suppose
that this mystery was not conveyed to him in the same way, that his
acts of devotion might comport with the honors due to each of the
Sacred Three? The Divine Nature is without multiplicity, it is one; but
the Three Subsistencies in that Essence are essential to the Godhead:
this arrangement is radical, constitutional, and eternal. Therefore why
should not God be worshipped according to his own natural distinction
of Persons in his undivided Essence, by man in his primitive state? A
Trinity in Unity is the most correct view of God; and, consequently,
the worship that accords with it, being the most accurate, must be
acceptable to him. The Christian religion has not given existence to
this doctrine of the Trinity; for independently of the mediatorial
scheme of redemption and salvation by Christ, God was from eternity the
same Triune Being, and cannot change. It is not improbable that man,
while he retained his pristine state, worshipped the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, in all his acts of religious worship. Lord Bacon,
in his Confession of Faith, says,--“I believe that nothing is without
beginning but God; no nature, no matter, no spirit, but one only, and
the same God. That God, as he is eternally almighty, only wise, only
good, in his nature; so he is eternally Father, Son, and Spirit, in
Persons.”
We cannot rationally suppose that Adam was a stranger to his _duty_,
either in its nature, manner, or extent. If he had not known what
duties his Creator required him to perform, it would have been
impossible for him to act agreeably to his will. Obedience to any
authority necessarily supposes a knowledge of what it enjoins: and,
consequently, Adam must have known what he ought to practise, in what
manner, and with what views; for, otherwise, he could not be obedient
to the will of God in what he did. Hence we must conclude, that he was
acquainted with the whole compass of his duty. As his understanding was
not blinded by contracted prejudices, so it was free from any natural
defect. His mind was furnished with correct views of God, his own
dependence upon him, relations and obligations to him, and the way to
please and enjoy him.
Adam, in his primitive state, knew wherein his _happiness_ consisted.
If he had been ignorant of that happiness to which he was entitled
so long as he preserved his integrity, how could he have enjoyed it
while in his possession; for a delight in any present good arises from
a perception of its nature and value. Neither was he ignorant of the
misery, into which an action committed against the will of his Creator
would bring him. He certainly knew that sinning against God would
inevitably be attended with fatal effects to himself. His unclouded
reason could not but discern, that rebellion against the dignity and
sovereignty of his Maker would unavoidably expose him to his righteous
displeasure.
As the judgment of Adam could not but entirely approve of the supreme
Good, in all the perfections of its nature, and revelation of the
Divine Mind; so his _will_, with great freedom following its dictates,
readily embraced what was right, and exactly harmonized with every
requisition. He had a holy disposition, such as comported with the
infinite perfection of holiness, so resplendent in the Divine Nature.
Some have asserted, that God formed man without any direction in his
will either to good or evil. But this imagination is irrational, for
it supposes that he was neither holy nor unholy. It is evident from
Scripture, that he was created good in an ethical or moral sense,
for he was made in the _image_ of God, which chiefly consisted in a
conformity to his moral perfections. He resembled these, particularly
that of holiness; so that, though in an infinitely lower degree, he was
holy as God is holy; without the least taint of sin in his nature, or
any inclination to evil, all his powers and faculties being disposed to
comply with his utmost requisition.
Adam’s _affections_ were subordinate and obedient to the higher
faculties of his soul, and moved without the least tumult or disorder.
Being pure and regular, there was no depravity or discord among them.
No temptation arose from vanity seated in any of the inferior powers:
neither was there a rebellious disposition among the passions directed
against his reason. No unlawful love, delight, or aversion had any
place in his innocent nature, and therefore the dictates of reason
did not meet with any control from corruption in the affections; and,
consequently, obedience to his Creator was not rendered difficult by
unruliness in the passions. Being thus made after the _likeness_ of
God, he had the moral law written on his heart: that hereby he might
have a perfect rule of obedience, and be easily apprised of his duty
to him. And as he was indispensably obliged to yield obedience to this
law, and the consequence of violating it would be endless ruin, God, as
a just and gracious Sovereign, gave him ability to keep it. Herein he
treated him as a rational creature, and a subject of moral government.
The inferior _appetites_ of Adam were in a state of perfect subjection,
and never indulged to the least excess. The animal structure requiring
food for its support, there was a great variety provided. But while
surrounded with plenty, he was strictly temperate; his appetite was
regular, consistent with purity, and in harmony with his devotions.
The _senses_ also corresponded to the faculties of the soul, and
were inlets to wisdom and enjoyment. Thus, as one observes, all his
faculties both of body and mind were subservient to the glory of God,
and contributed to his own felicity: a state which we are to regain by
Christ.
“Enslav’d to sense, to pleasure prone,
Fond of created good;
Father, our helplessness we own,
And trembling taste our food.
Trembling we taste; for, ah! no more
To thee the creatures lead;
Chang’d, they exert a baneful power,
And poison, while they feed.
Curs’d for the sake of wretched man,
They now engross him whole;
With pleasing force on earth detain!
And sensualize his soul.
Groveling on earth we still must lie,
Till Christ the curse repeal:
Till Christ descending from on high
Infected nature heal.
Come then, our heavenly Adam, come,
Thy healing influence give;
Hallow our food, reverse our doom,
And bid us eat, and live.
Turn the full stream of nature’s tide:
Let all our actions tend
To thee their source; thy love the guide,
Thy glory be the end.
Earth then a scale to heaven shall be,
Sense shall point out the road;
The creatures all shall lead to thee,
And all we taste be God.”
Man was _happy_ in his original state; he not only was free from pain
and misery, but enjoyed delight. His pleasure was of a pure nature, not
only such as God approved, but derived from a Divine source. If his
mind had not been possessed of correct knowledge, his will disposed
to obedience, his affections regular and holy, and his appetites and
senses subject to a rational control, what pleasure could he have taken
in the contemplation of infinite perfections, and in a compliance to
the requisitions of the moral law? Happiness necessarily supposes
delight, and delight as necessarily supposes a concordance between
the disposition of the soul, and the objects from which its pleasure
springs. Man was happy while innocent; he therefore enjoyed pleasure,
which was pure, arising from positive holiness, and the presence
and blessing of God. Surely it is reasonable to conclude, that Adam
performed devotional acts with holy reverence and supreme delight. He
could not but give the tribute of praise to his beneficent Creator, for
his superabundant goodness toward him; being favored with every thing,
not only necessary to his sustenance, in the excellent circumstances
in which he was placed, but with whatever he could desire for the
entertainment and delight of his innocent and heavenly mind. Above
all, his grateful soul most certainly adored his Creator, for the
glorious and beneficial displays of his wisdom, power, and goodness,
and rejoiced in the interest he had in his approbation, protection,
and kindness. While he retained his integrity, and enjoyed free access
to his Maker, intimate communion with him, and was free from his
displeasure, what serenity, satisfaction, and pleasure must fill his
soul! He possessed that first and greatest of blessings, mentioned by
Horace, _mens sana in corpore sano_, a sound mind in a healthy body.
Notwithstanding the excellent state in which Adam was created, and
advantageous circumstances in which he was placed, yet he was liable
to fall. By reason of the spiritual and intelligent principle in him,
he became a moral agent, and a subject of moral government. He knew
his duty, and had the power of determining his own choice and actions.
He could choose good, and refuse evil, and be influenced by the hope
of reward and the fear of punishment. He had no disposition to sin in
his nature: for God could not create him in a sinful state, since that
would render him the author of sin. He had full power to stand: but
God could not interfere with the freedom of his will; and herein he
acted toward him in a way agreeable to his condition of probation. The
mutability of his will was essential to him as a rational creature,
placed in a state of responsibility for his actions to the great
Governor of the world. Dr. Paley says, “Free agency in its very essence
contains liability to abuse. Yet, if you deprive man of his free
agency, you subvert his nature.” God answers for himself in Milton:--
----“Man had of me
All he could have: I made him just and right,
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.”
The sentiments of Faber are very appropriate. “When the Almighty ceased
from the work of creation, he pronounced all that he had made to be
very good. The new world was as yet free from the inroads of sin, and
from the curse of sterility.
---- ‘Nature then
Wanton’d as in her prime, and play’d at will
Her virgin fancies.’
“The whole creation smiled upon man, and the golden age of the poets
was realized. Blessed with perfect health, both mental and corporeal,
our heaven-born progenitor was equally unconscious of the stings
of guilt and the pangs of disease. His understanding was unclouded
with the mists of vice, ignorance, and error; his will, though
absolutely free, was yet entirely devoted to the service of God; and
his affections warm, vigorous, and undivided, were ardently bent upon
the great Fountain of existence. Though vested in an earthly body,
his soul was as the soul of an angel, pure, just, and upright. He was
uncontaminated with the smallest sin, and free from even the slightest
taint of pollution. His passions perfectly under the guidance of his
reason, yielded a ready and cheerful obedience to the dictates of
his conscience; an obedience, not constrained and irksome, but full,
unreserved, and attended with sensations of unmixed delight. Such was
man when he came forth from the hand of his Creator, the image of God
stamped upon his soul and influencing all his actions.”[203]
We may add, the authority and _dominion_ with which God invested Adam.
This extended “over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over the earth, and over every living thing
that creepeth upon the earth.” God constituted him the ruler, under
him, of all the inferior creatures. He probably inducted him into this
office when he caused the creatures to pass in review before him.
“And the Lord God brought every beast of the field, and every fowl
of the air, unto Adam to see what he would call them: and Adam gave
names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast
of the field: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that
was the name thereof.” Man alone, says Smellie, enjoys the power of
communicating and expressing his ideas by articulate and artificial
language. This inestimable prerogative is a great source of improvement
to the human intellect. Without artificial language, though the Author
of nature has bestowed on every animal a mode of expressing its wants
and desires, its pleasures and pains, what a humiliating figure would
the human species exhibit?
Dr. Beattie, in defining the human voice, says, it is air sent out
from the lungs, and so agitated, or modified, in its passage through
the windpipe and larynx, as to become distinctly audible. The windpipe
conveys air into the lungs for the purpose of respiration and speech;
the top or upper part of which is called the larynx, consisting of
four or five cartilages, that may be expanded or brought together,
by the agency of certain muscles which operate all at the same time.
In the middle of the larynx there is a small aperture, called the
_glottis_, through which the breath and voice are conveyed, but which,
when we swallow any thing, is covered by a lid called the _epiglottis_.
Authors have determined that the voice is produced by two semi-circular
membranes in the middle of the larynx, which form by their separation
the aperture that is termed the glottis. The space between them is not
wider than one-tenth of an inch; through which the breath transmitted
from the lungs must pass with considerable velocity. In its passage
it is supposed to give a brisk vibratory motion to the membranous
lips of the glottis, and so to form the sound which we call _voice_:
in order to the production of which, it, however, seems necessary,
that, by an energy of the will, a certain degree of tenseness should
be communicated to the larynx, or at least to the two membranes in the
middle of it. The voice, thus formed, is strengthened and mellowed by
a reverberation from the palate, and other hollow places in the inside
of the mouth and nostrils; and as these are better or worse shaped
for this reverberation, it is said to be more or less agreeable. The
glottis is found to be narrower in women and young persons than in men;
hence the voices of the latter are deeper, or more grave, than those
of the former. We can at pleasure dilate or contract this aperture,
so as to form the tones of the voice to every variety of the musical
scale. If we consider the many variations of sound, which the same
human voice is capable of uttering, together with the small diameter
of the glottis; and reflect that the same diameter must always produce
the same tone, and, consequently, that to every change of tone a
correspondent change of diameter is necessary: we must be astonished
at the mechanism of these parts and the fineness of the fibers,
producing effects so minute, various, and uniform. For it admits of
proof, that the glottis is capable of at least sixty distinct degrees
of contraction and enlargement, by each of which a different note is
produced.[204]
Concerning the origin of language, numerous conjectures have been
formed. As an instance how far the human mind, unassisted by a Divine
revelation, can go, Diodorus Siculus and Vitruvius have asserted, “that
men at first lived like beasts in woods and caves, forming only strange
and uncouth noises, till their fears caused them to associate together;
and that on growing acquainted with each other, they came to correspond
about things, first by signs, then to make names for them, and in time,
to frame and perfect a language; and that the languages of the world
are different, because different companies of men happening thus to
come together in different places, would, of course, form different
sounds or names of things; hence would arise the variety observable
even in ancient languages.” Thus we perceive the necessity of the
Scriptures relative even to this subject.
“The Mosaic History,” observes Dr. A. Clarke, “represents man as
being immediately capable of conversing with his Maker: of giving
names to the various tribes and classes of animals; and of reasoning
consecutively, and in perfectly appropriate terms, concerning his own
situation, and the relation he stood in to the creatures. As in man’s
first attempt at speech, according to this account, there appear no
crudeness of conception, no barrenness of ideas, and no inexpressive
or unappropriate terms, it is most rational to conclude, that God who
made and endued him with corporeal and mental powers, perfectly suited
to his state and condition in life, endued him also, not only with the
faculty of speech, but with speech or language itself; which latter was
as necessary to his comfort, and, indeed, to the perfection and end
of his being, as any other power or faculty which his Creator thought
proper to bestow upon him.”
Some assert that Adam _gave names_, from an intimate knowledge of the
nature and properties of each creature: that this shows the perfection
of his knowledge, for the names affixed to the different animals
in Scripture always express some prominent feature and essential
characteristic of the creatures to which they are applied; and that had
he not possessed an intuitive knowledge of the grand and distinguishing
properties of those animals, he never could have given them such names.
Dr. Leland states, that man was immediately endued with the gift of
language, which necessarily supposes that he was furnished with a stock
of ideas, a specimen of which he gave in giving names to the inferior
animals, which were brought to him for that purpose. Dr. Johnson
affirms, that the origin of language must have come by inspiration.
But Bishop Warburton conjectures, that God, in this transaction with
Adam, taught him language. Here, says he, by a common figure of speech,
the historian, instead of directly relating the fact, that God taught
man language, represents it, by showing God in the _act_ of doing it,
in a particular _mode_ of information; and that the most apposite we
can conceive in elementary instruction; namely, the giving of names
to substances; things with which Adam was to be conversant, and which
therefore had need of being distinguished each by its proper name.
And what a familiar image do these words give one of a learner of his
rudiments? _And God brought every beast to Adam to_ SEE _what he would
call them_. But though it appears that God taught man language, yet we
cannot reasonably suppose it any other than what served his present
occasions, he being now of himself able to improve and enlarge it, as
his future necessities should require. The celebrated Cowper, touching
this subject says:--
“One man alone, the father of us all,
Drew not his life from woman; never gaz’d,
With mute unconsciousness of what he saw,
On all around him: learn’d not by degrees,
Nor aw’d articulation to his ear;
But, moulded by his Maker into man
At once, upstood intelligent, survey’d
All creatures, with precision understood
Their purport, uses, properties, assign’d
To each his name significant, and, fill’d
With love, and wisdom, render’d back to Heaven
In praise harmonious the first air he drew.
He was excus’d the penalties of dull
Minority. No tutor charg’d his hand
With the thought-tracing quill, or task’d his mind
With problems.”
However, by the creatures passing before Adam, probably in pairs,
and he giving them names as they passed according to the nature and
properties of each, one thing evidently appears, namely, he was
convinced that none of these animals could be a suitable companion for
him; for, among all which he had named, “there was not a help-meet for
him:” one suitable and proper as an intimate companion and friend.
“He views the vast creation o’er,
Marks his own structure more than e’er before;
Sees all the creatures with their co-mates blest,
Himself left pensive, far unlike the rest;
Without compeer with whom his hours to spend,
Or jointly at the sacred altar bend.
_Religion_--sacred to the first great Cause:
_Philosophy_--the voice of Nature’s laws;
And _social dictates_, all at once combine
To teach their pupil, that the whole design
Is not completed, while his lonely life
Is left without a helper, friend, and wife.
Refulgent Sol, while traversing his way,
Has Luna shining with her lucid ray;
And though her glory is a borrow’d light,
She reigns sole empress of the sable night.
Soft purling streams to rivers speed their course,
And blend themselves with their capacious source.
The spreading branches of uxorious vines,
Clasp round each other with encircling twines.
The climbing Ivy does the Oak embrace,
And meets with verdant wreaths his bending face.
The feather’d tribes that wing the firmament,
By instinct led, to wedded love consent:
They range the neighb’ring meads in quest of food,
And guard and cherish their young callow brood.
And shall the creatures without just pretence,
Alone possess this high pre-eminence?
Though with abounding earthly comforts blest,
Shall man pre-eminent still want the best:--
A bosom friend, than virgin rose more sweet,
And whom he can with heart-felt rapture greet;
Of pleasing form, equal and tender mind,
To whom he can in closest ties be join’d?”
God did not approve of this state of solitude: he said, “It is not good
that man should be alone,” or only himself. The Creator had not yet
finished his works. He saw it necessary to relieve man in his solitary
situation; and his goodness and power were ready to concur with the
dictates of his wisdom. He said, “I will make him a _help-meet_ for
him;” i.e. his counterpart, one like himself in shape, constitution,
and disposition; exactly adapted to both his body and mind, the very
image of himself, _a second self_.
“Must the fair creature promis’d to be giv’n,
Be sent to earth from the abode of heav’n?
Angelic nature could not well supply
The craving void, remote, and far too high.
Will God select amongst the brutal race,
One, and refine it for his fond embrace?
Nay, that would be too mean for his respect,
Beneath his nature, void of intellect.
The wise Creator, to complete his plan,
Resolves to make a _help-meet_ from the Man,
Procure the stamina from him alone,
Thus constitute her “bone of his own bone.”
From Man! but where? what part can he forego,
From head majestic to the servile toe?
The head imperial would be much too high,
Lest she, perchance, should for the mast’ry try.
The toilsome feet are base, of low renown,
Lest he should trample the fair creature down.
In Man’s organic structure, mark! the part
Is that which lies contiguous to the heart;
Main spring of life, whence all the frame looks gay,
Centre, where all the lovely passions play;
Under the shield of the protecting arm,
Which can defend her from impending harm.”
Accordingly, God proceeded in his work: not as before, when he made
man, and formed his body of the dust of the earth; but he took of the
substance of man, and of that formed an associate for him. The process
is mentioned by Moses, “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall
upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up
the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken
from man, made he a woman.” The word תרדמה translated _a deep sleep_,
signifies such a sleep as renders a man insensible of any thing done to
him; which was not natural but an extraordinary sleep; not occasioned
by any act of violence done to nature, but the immediate effect of the
hand of God upon him. Sleep, says a German author, is one of the most
remarkable effects of the Divine goodness. It is certainly a proof of
the wisdom of our Creator, that we fall asleep imperceptibly. Sleep
comes unsummoned: it is the only change in our manner of existence
in which reflection bears no part; and is alike independent of the
understanding and the will. Our situation, indeed, during the time of
sleep, is wonderful. We live, but without knowing or perceiving it! The
palpitations of the heart, the circulation of the blood, the process
of digestion, and, in a word, all the animal functions continue to
be performed without interruption. The mind appears, as it were, to
suspend its activity, for a time: by degrees, it looses all sensation,
every distinct idea. The senses are deadened, and stop their wonted
operations. The muscles, by degrees, are moved more slowly, till all
voluntary motion ceases. This change begins in the forehead: then the
muscles of the eye-lids, and of the neck, arms, and feet, are so much
deprived of their activity, that the man seems to be metamorphosed
into a plant. The situation of the brain becomes such, that it cannot
transmit to the soul the same ideas as when we are awake. The soul
perceives no object, though the nerve of vision is not altered; and
it would see nothing, were the eyes to be even open. The ears are not
shut, and yet they hear nothing. In a word, we find an unceasing source
of admiration, in the wonderful preparations, and the tender care,
which the Divine Being has employed, to procure us the blessings of
sleep. The following epigram, translated from the Latin by Dr. Wolcott,
is beautiful:--
“Come, gentle sleep, attend thy votary’s prayer,
And, though death’s image, to my couch repair!
How sweet, thus lifeless, yet with life to lie,
Thus without dying, oh how sweet to die!”
The word צלע _tsela_, and in the Septuagint πλευρα, rendered a _rib_,
most probably means _bone_, and _flesh_, not a naked bone, but one
with flesh adhering to it. “And the rib which the Lord God had taken
from man, _made_ he a woman,” or, according to the Hebrew, _builded it
up_ to be a woman; signifying, that the human species was perfect when
the woman was created, which before was like an imperfect building.
This implies, an old author intimates, that as children are derived
from their parents to build up the family, so the woman was derived
from Adam to build up his great family, mankind, of his own nature and
substance; and that his posterity might spring wholly from him, both
in respect of himself, and of his wife, their common mother, who was
taken out of him. What amazing wisdom is herein displayed; not only in
producing a creature _like_ man, but out of _a part of man himself_!
God could have animated and organized the dust of the earth, and of
it formed the woman; but had he done so, she would have appeared
in the eyes of man as a distinct being, to whom he had no natural
relation.[205]
“Her form completed, lo! she rises fair,
Possess’d of beauties far beyond compare!
This last production of the Artist’s skill,
Best effort of his wisdom, might, and will,
Gains science’ height: the high-wrought features shine,
Her form displays a symmetry divine.
Her pleasing gesture, as she walks along,
Exceeds the powers of harmony and song.
Her fine exterior, by her Maker drest,
Is but the mansion of a brighter guest,
To flesh superior far, howe’er refin’d;--
A pure, reflective, comprehensive mind!
Expression soft sits sparkling in her eyes,
While from her bosom heavenly raptures rise;
Intrinsic worth, comprising every grace,
Displays its radiance in her roseate face.”
When the woman was formed, “God brought her unto the man,” i.e. he
presented her to him to be his wife. We are not to imagine, by
_bringing her to the man_, is meant, that God merely placed her before
his eyes, and thus exhibited her: but that he joined the man and the
woman together in marriage.
“Attending angels strike the choral lay,
And hymn your anthems on this bridal day;
While the first Pair unite their willing hands,
Whose hearts are join’d in love’s eternal bands.”
On receiving the woman, Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh.” Adam was the common stock and root of all mankind;
not only all his posterity were wholly contained in him alone, but also
the first woman, the mother of us all, had her vital life in him, and
was part of his living flesh and bones: he saw that she was of the same
nature, the same identical flesh and blood, the same constitution in
all respects, having the same physical powers, mental faculties, and
inalienable rights. He added, “She shall be called _Woman_, because she
was taken out of man;” i.e. she shall partake of my name as she does
of my nature. A literal version of the Hebrew would appear strange,
says Dr. A. Clarke, and yet a literal version is the only proper
one. איש _Ish_, signifies _man_; and the word used to express what
we term _woman_, is the same with feminine termination, אשה _ishah_,
and literally means _she-man_. Most of the ancient versions have felt
the force of the term, and have endeavored to express it as literally
as possible. The Vulgate Latin renders the Hebrew _virago_, which is
a feminine form of _vir_, a man. Symmachus used ανδρις _andris_, a
female form of ανηρ, _aner_, a man. Our own term is equally proper,
when understood: it is a literal translation of the original; and we
may thank the discernment of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors for giving it.
Wombman, of which _woman_ is a contraction, means the _man with the
womb_. Verstegan, in his Restitution of Decayed Intelligence, justifies
this sense of the word, on the ground of antiquity and propriety, and
says it should be so written. The term _woman_ was not peculiar to
her, but common to the sex; she differing from man in sex only, not in
nature. Afterward Adam called her חוה _chavah_, which answers exactly
to ζωη of the Septuagint, both signifying _life_, because she was the
mother of all _living_.
“Oh blest existence! (now the man exclaims,
And higher praises of his God proclaims.)
My cup with blessings hast thou amply fill’d,
Consummate joys for my great portion will’d:
No wants are left, no good hast thou denied,
Thy lib’ral hand has all I wish’d supplied.
Thou Fount of being! source of pure delight!
In thee my comforts center and unite:
Thyself I love, thy vast perfections see,
And all thy gifts receiv’d enjoy in Thee.
He turns to Eve, whose charms are all in view,
The perfect form which highest wisdom drew:
Her sweet attractions touch his yielding mind,
As three-fold cords his willing passions bind.
Sensations soft with quick transition roll,
And raise the transports of his grateful soul:
While thrilling raptures through his bosom move,
He feels his heart the seat of GOD--and _love_.
Their minds now glowing with celestial fire,
They jointly bend before their gracious SIRE;
Devotion’s flame with greater ardor burns,
And both are vocal in his praise by turns.
While thus their pow’rs in pleasing acts employ,
The _social_ worship much augments their joy:
Their warm addresses to the sacred throne,
Ascend as incense, and bring blessings down.”
The relation between _husband_ and _wife_ is the strongest union that
results from the highest obligations of nature. “Therefore,” said Adam,
“shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Here we perceive, as Dr. Delany
intimates, that Adam had a perfect idea of father and mother, before
any existed; that he had clear ideas of the affection arising from
that relation, before any children were born into the world: and yet
perceived that the endearment arising from marriage should be stronger
than these ties, so as to attach a man with warmer affection to his
wife, than to those very parents to whom he was indebted for life. Now
if the received doctrines of philosophy be true, that the senses are
the inlets of ideas, and that we can have no ideas without objects:
then we must conclude, that as he had these ideas, and had them not
from nature, he must have received them from express revelation. Hence
our Saviour, in his answer to the Pharisees, informs us, that the
words pronounced by Adam on this occasion, were the declaration of God
himself. “Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning,
made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall
be one flesh.” These two shall be considered as _one body_, having no
separate or independent interests: or, these two shall be _for the
production_ of one flesh; from their union a posterity shall spring,
as exactly resembling themselves as they do each other. The Greek word
προσκολληθησεται, translated _one flesh_, signifies shall be _glued_ to
her.
How happy must such a state be, where the parties married come up to
the design of this sacred institution! Dr. Hunter observes, “What
an important era in the life of Adam! What a new display of the
Creator’s power, skill, and goodness! How must the spirit of devotion
be heightened, now that man could join in _social_ worship! What
additional satisfaction in contemplating the frame, order, and course
of nature, now that he possessed the most exalted of human joys, that
of conveying knowledge to a beloved object! Now he could instruct
Eve in the wonders of creation, and unfold to her their Maker’s
nature, perfections, and will!” Oh happy state! They are happy in the
constitution of their nature,--being innocent, upright creatures; and
in having their pure minds perfectly united in love and kindness to
each other. They were happy in all their united acts of adoration and
praise to their Creator,--exact harmony, unmixed delight, and untainted
piety, residing in each breast! They lived in communion with God,
enjoyed a transporting sense of his favor, walked in the light of his
countenance, and were raptured in their meditations on the Divine glory!
We have here the first institution of marriage, and we see in it
several things worthy of peculiar attention and regard. 1. God
pronounces the state of celibacy _not a good one_: and the Lord God
said, “It is not good that man should be alone,” לבדו _lebaddo_ only
himself. It was neither for his comfort, who was formed for society,
nor for the accomplishment of God’s purpose in the increase of mankind.
Though he was created in the image of God, and enjoyed delightful
intercourse with him, his solitary condition required a suitable
companion. 2. God made the woman _for_ the man; he was not made _for
her_, but she was made _for him_, and derived, under God, her being
from him. The apostle says, “Neither was the man created for the woman:
but the woman for the man,” to be a suitable helper and comfort to him.
And thus God has shown us, that every son of Adam should be united to a
daughter of Eve to the end of the world. 3. God made the woman _out_ of
the man: as Adam was immediately from God, so Eve was immediately from
Adam; “the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man:” made of
a part of his body, taken out, not of his head, to show that she was
not to exercise dominion over him; nor of his foot, to indicate that
she must not be his slave; but of his side, to intimate that she needs
his counsel and direction; from under his arm, to teach him that he
must protect her; and near his heart, to tell him that he must love her
as himself. The closest union, and the most affectionate attachment,
should subsist in the matrimonial connection. The man should ever
consider and treat the woman as a _part of himself_; and as no one ever
hated his own flesh, but nourishes and supports it, so should a husband
evince the greatest tenderness and affection for his wife: and on the
other hand, considering that the woman derived her being from man, and
was made _for_ him, therefore the wife should “see that she reverence
her husband.” “For as man is the image and glory of God; so the woman
is the glory of the man.” 4. God himself instituted the marriage union,
and being appointed and established by him, it must be an honorable
state. “Marriage is honorable in all,” being a Divine institution; and
consequently suitable for persons of any rank, or employment, either
civil or sacred. The corruption of manners has strangely perverted
this original purpose and institution of God. However, he will never
accommodate his morality to the times, nor to the inclinations of men.
What was settled at the beginning, he judged most worthy of his glory,
most profitable for man, and most suitable to his nature. 5. Marriage
was instituted immediately on the creation of man and formation of
the woman; whence it is evident that God never designed that mankind
should be preserved, and the earth peopled any other way. And as the
marriage union took place while man was in a state of innocence,
upright and pure, just such as his Creator made him, it is therefore
suitable to the greatest purity both of heart and life. 6. The design
of this institution was, that man and woman might be mutually helpful
to each other, in all the necessities and uses of life partaking of the
cares and labors of each other, reciprocally sharing in each other’s
delights and pleasures, and combining together to love, serve, and
please God.
The _situation_ of Adam and Eve is worthy of our attention. The sacred
historian says, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden;
and there he put the man whom he had formed.” The word עדן _Eden_,
signifying _pleasure_ or _delight_, is expressive of their excellent
residence. The Septuagint render the passage thus: εφυτευσεν ὁ Θεος
παραδεισου εν Εδεμ, _God planted a Paradise in Eden_. The Fathers of
the Church; says Huet, both Latin and Greek, all the Interpreters of
Scripture, ancient and modern, and all the Orientals, do agree, that
Eden is a local name taken from the beauty of the place. The Garden
or Paradise was situated in Eden, being two different places, as the
whole from its part. “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden;
and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. And the
name of the first is Pison; that is it which compasseth the whole land
of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good;
there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river
is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth
toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.” The
most probable account of the situation of the terrestrial Paradise,
says Dr. A. Clarke, is that given by Hadrian Reland. He supposes it to
have been in Armenia, near the sources of the great rivers, Euphrates,
Tigris, Phasis, and Araxes. He thinks Pison was the Phasis, a river of
Cholchis, emptying itself into the Euxine Sea, where there is a city
called Chabala, the pronunciation of which is nearly the same with that
of Havilah, or חוילה _Chavilah_, according to the Hebrew, the _vau_ ו
being changed in Greek to _beta_ β. This country was famous for gold,
whence the fable of the Golden Fleece, attempted to be carried away
from that country by the heroes of Greece. The Gihon he thinks to be
the Araxes, which runs into the Caspian Sea, both the words having
the same signification, namely, a _rapid motion_. The land of Cush,
washed by the river, he supposes to be the country of the Cussæi of
the ancients; a nation of Asia, destroyed by Alexander to appease the
manes of Hephæstion. The Hiddekel all agree to be the Tigris; and the
other river, Phrat, or פרת _Perath_, to be the Euphrates. All these
rivers rise in the same tract of mountainous country, though they do
not proceed from one head.
Man, says Faber, was placed by the Deity in the garden of Paradise. The
beauty of its scenery, the salubrity of its climate, the variety and
excellence of its fruits, all contributed to the beatitude of the first
pair, and tended to elevate their thoughts to that Being, who was the
author and contriver of such numerous blessings. Trained, says Bishop
Horne, in the school of Eden by the material elements of a visible
world, to the knowledge of one that is immaterial and invisible, Adam
found himself excited by the beauty of the picture, to aspire after the
transcendent excellence of the Divine original.
From this, says Dr. A. Clarke, the ancient heathens borrowed their
ideas of the gardens of Hesperides, where the trees bore golden
fruit; the gardens of Adonis, a word which is evidently derived from
the Hebrew עדן _Aden_; and hence the origin of sacred gardens, or
inclosures, dedicated to purposes of devotion, some comparatively
innocent, others impure. From the holiness of the garden of Eden,
says Faber, the Pagans probably borrowed their ancient custom of
consecrating groves to the worship of their various deities. The
description given by Quintus Curtius of the sacred grove of Jupiter
Hammon is singularly beautiful, and almost presents to the imagination
the deep shades and the crystal streams of Eden. “At length,” says
he, “they arrived at the consecrated habitation of the deity, which,
incredible as it may seem, was situated in the midst of a desert, and
shaded from the sun by so luxuriant a vegetation, that its beams could
scarcely penetrate through the thickness of the foliage. The groves
are watered by the meandering streams of numerous fountains; and a
wonderful temperature of climate, resembling most of all the delightful
season of spring, prevails through the whole year with an equal degree
of salubrity.”
This golden age is described by Plato, in a manner which, independently
of his confession (namely, that he gained his information from the
Phœnicians, who received it from their ancestors,) proves him to have
derived it, not from written records, but from traditional reports.
His mansion of primeval bliss was not in this dark, diminished, and
deformed, this corrupted globe, but in a pure, ethereal, and lucid orb
of unlimited extent, where men breathed, not air, but light, drank
nectar, and partook of fruits spontaneously produced. The inclement
seasons were unknown, raiment was not yet invented, and nakedness
produced no distress. When weary, the inhabitants reclined to sleep on
soft herbage, which received the influence of one eternal spring. In
these delightful regions no stormy winds interrupted their calm repose;
no evil passion disturbed their serenity of soul; and reason, guided
by benevolence, bore a universal sway. Whilst this state continued,
man conversed freely with those animals, which, now wild, avoid his
presence, and fly at his approach.
Virgil was no stranger to a golden age; and Seneca has well
described the peaceful state whilst Saturn reigned. But of all the
representations, that which we find in Ovid is the most beautiful, and,
allowing for poetic imagery, is accurately just.
“The golden age was first; when man, yet new,
No rule but uncorrupted reason knew,
And with a native bent did good pursue.
Unforc’d by punishment, unaw’d by fear,
His words were simple, and his soul sincere.
Needless was written law where none opprest:
The law of man was written in his breast.
No suppliant crowds before the judge appear’d;
No court erected yet, nor cause was heard;
But all was safe, for conscience was their guard.”
Such notions of the felicity enjoyed by man in a state of innocence,
were not confined to Italy and Greece, but have been discovered equally
among the Persians, Indians, and Chinese. The Brahmins say, that in the
beginning of the world, plenty was every where diffused, and milk, with
wine and honey, flowed from fountains. Similar images were used by the
Persian magi to convey a notion of primeval happiness.[206]
Thus Adam and Eve were happy in their situation, being placed
in Paradise, which was delightful for agreeable and pleasing
accommodations of every kind to regale their senses; it was stored with
the utmost profusion of Divine bounty!
“O Jesus! at thy feet we wait,
Till thou shalt bid us rise,
Restor’d to our unsinning state,
To love’s sweet paradise.”
* * * * *
Footnotes - Chapter VII
[157] The _marine_ Polypus is different in form from the
fresh-water Polype; but is nourished, increased, and may be
propagated after the same manner. When it produces its young,
they issue from its sides, as branches from a tree; these young
shoots are no sooner detached from their parents, than they
become separate Polypuses, and fish for prey.
It seems that every part of this animal possesses a
principle of life. If it be cut into three pieces, it is so far
from being destroyed, that it becomes three polypuses: the head
produces a body and tail; the body, a head and tail; and the
tail, a head and body. When a Polypus is cut in two lengthways,
these close themselves, the wounds are healed in a few moments,
and in the course of some hours they will eat greedily. If
these Polypuses be again cut into four, or six pieces, these
divisions of the animal will also become Polypuses; but they
will not be matured, nor capable of eating, for some days.
If this creature be turned like a glove, by pushing the tail
into the body until it come out of the mouth, after such an
operation it will still eat, and continue to produce young
ones; so strong and vigorous is the principle of life which it
possesses.
There are other insects which possess similar properties;
and it is certain that nearly all plants which are produced
from suckers, have no part which may not become either a stem
or branch, and which will germinate, and furnish one, or even
many plants.]
[158] For the contrary opinion, see Fragments appended to
Calmet’s Dictionary, pp. 114-117.
[159] “Some time ago, a person in the Isle of Wight,
digging the ground for the foundation of an out-house,
discovered the nest or magazine of a field-mouse. It was of
large dimension, and was stored with acorns, which were laid up
in the neatest and most compact manner imaginable. These were
so numerous that he was induced to count them, and found, in
the whole, no fewer than _eight hundred and two_. How wonderful
are those faculties with which the beneficent Creator of the
world has endowed his creatures, for the purpose of providing
for wants which they have no power to foresee, and yet, without
which provision, they must, during the severity of winter, be
inevitably destroyed!”--New Monthly Magazine, July, 1814, p.
531.
[160] See Dr. Paley’s Natural Theology, pp. 296-299.
[161] To this may be referred an economical experiment
well known to the Dutch, that when eight Cows have been in a
pasture, and can no longer get nourishment, two horses will do
very well there for some days; and when nothing is left for the
Horses, four Sheep will live on it.
[162] The Arabians, when travelling, and in want of water,
frequently kill their camels to obtain a supply, which, though
taken out of the animal, they find perfectly good.
[163] Dr. Paley’s Natural Theology, p. 278.
[164] Dr. Percival’s Instructions, p. 23.
[165] See Annual Register, vol. iii, p. 90.
[166] Dr. Beattie’s Dissertations, Moral and Critical.
[167] Dr. Percival’s Instructions, p. 8.
The Chinese consider the flesh of this animal as a dainty,
and public shambles are erected for the sale of it. In Canton
particularly, there is a street appropriated to that purpose;
and, what is very extraordinary, whenever a dog-butcher
appears, all the dogs in the place pursue him in full cry.
They know their enemy, and persecute him as far as they are
able.--Goldsmith’s History of the Earth.
[168] Wesley’s Philosophy, vol. i, p. 233.
[169] For a description of the _Crocodile_, given by
Divine inspiration, see Job chap. xli. It is a great question
among learned men, says Mr. Benson, what creature is meant by
לויתן, _leviathan_. Our translators were evidently uncertain
respecting it, and therefore have given us the original term
untranslated. The Seventy, however, have rendered it δρακων,
_the dragon_; but that is far from being correct. The dragon is
a genus belonging to the order of amphibia reptilia. There are
two species, 1. The volans, or flying dragon, with the wings
entirely distinct from the fore-legs, which is found in Africa
and the East Indies. 2. The præpos, with the wings fixed to the
fore-legs, which is a native of America. They are both harmless
creatures; and feed on flies, ants, and small insects. The word
לויתן, _leviathan_ is supposed to be derived from לוי, _levi_,
_joined_, or _coupled_, and תן, _than_, or תנין _thannin,
a dragon_, that is, a _large serpent_, or _fish_, the word
_thannin_ being used both for a land-serpent, and a kind of
fish. And “after comparing what Bochart and others have written
on the subject, it appears to me,” says Parkhurst, “that the
compound word לויתן, _leviathan, the coupled dragon_, denotes
some animal, partaking of the nature both of the land serpents,
and fishes, and, in this place, signifies the _crocodile_,
which lives as well under water as on the shore.”
[170] Bingley’s Animal Biography, vol. ii, p. 410, &c.
[171] Dr. Paley’s Natural Theology, p. 286.
[172] Aristotle asserts that _spinning_ and _weaving_ were
first learned from the spider. Thence it has its Greek name
αραχνης, Latin _Aranea_, French _Araignce_, from the Hebrew
_Aragnevit_, _texuit_, or _Arach, textura_. And it is not
improbable that our English word _Spider_ is but a corruption
of _Spinner_, for _Spinn_ is the German word for _Spider_. With
this agrees that poetic fancy, that _Arachne_ an excellent
_spinster_, was by _Pallas_ turned into a _Spider_. Pallas
was the goddess of wisdom, war, weaving, spinning, and the
liberal arts; and she was invoked by almost every artist,
particularly such as worked in wool, embroidery, painting, and
sculpture.--Edward’s Demonstration, &c.
[173] See Jones’s Disquisition concerning clean and unclean
Animals.
[174] See D’Assigny on the Hieroglyphics of Egypt.
[175] Epist. cap. v.
[176] Simil. ix, sect. 13.
[177] Ad. Autol. lib. 2, p. 96.
[178] Lib. iv, cap. 37, et lib. v. c. 15.
[179] Lib. iv, cap. 75.
[180] Adv. Prax. c. 12.
[181] Cap. 21, 25.
[182] Cont. Cel. lib. i, p. 63.
[183] Socrat. lib. ii. c. 30, where the Creed may be seen
at large.
[184] Hæres. 23, n. 2.
[185] Hæres. 44, n. 4. See Bibliotheca Biblica on the place.
[186] Lib. iv, cap. 37.
[187] Two Dissertations, &c. pp. 29, 30.
[188] Among the numerous traditions of the New-Zealanders,
says Nicholas, there is one which is very remarkable. It
refers to the creation of man, and has been handed down from
father to son, through all generations. They believe the first
man to have been created by three gods, Mowheerangaranga, or
Toopoonah, or grandfather, Mowheermooha, and Mowheebotakee; but
give the greatest share in the business to the first-mentioned
of these deities.
[189] Moses says, “the _life_, נפש nephesh, of the flesh is
in the _blood_.” And St. Paul affirms, “God hath made of _one
blood_ all nations of men.” This sentence of Moses, which, in
conjunction with that of St. Paul, contains a most important
truth, had existed in the sacred Scriptures for 3,600 years,
before it arrested the attention of any philosopher. This is
more surprising, as the nations in which philosophy flourished,
were those which especially enjoyed the Divine oracles in
their respective languages. That the blood actually possesses
a _living principle_, and that the life of the whole body
is derived from it, is a doctrine of Divine revelation, and
which the observations and experiments of the most accurate
anatomists have served strongly to confirm. The proper
_circulation_ of this important fluid through the _whole_ human
system, was taught by Solomon in figurative language, Eccles.
xii, 6; and discovered, as it is called, and demonstrated by
Dr. Harvey in 1628; though some Italian philosophers had the
same notion a little before. This distinguished anatomist was
the first who fully revived the Mosaic notion of the _vitality_
of the blood; and which correct view was afterwards adopted by
the justly celebrated Mr. John Hunter, whose strong reasoning
and accurate experiments have served to sanction and give
publicity to a fact so long unknown to mankind. The doctrine of
Moses and St. Paul proves the truth of the doctrine of Harvey
and Hunter: and the reasonings and experiments of the latter,
illustrate and confirm the doctrine of the former.--See Dr. A.
Clarke on Lev. xvii, 11.
[190] As an instance of this I may mention the case of
a gentleman who was subject to frequent attacks of asthma,
to such a degree, that if he were not relieved immediately
by bleeding, he was in danger of suffocation: by being so
frequently bled in that state, his blood at length became so
pale as scarcely to stain a linen cloth, in consequence of the
particles of the blood being so slowly renewed.
[191] Two of these causes are peculiarly important and
interesting. When an animal has lost a considerable quantity
of blood, and faints in consequence, the power of the blood to
coagulate quickly is greatly increased.--When, for example, a
sheep is bled to death, if you receive a cupful of the blood
which first issues from the throat, and a cupful of the last,
you will find that the latter will coagulate sooner, and become
much more solid than the first portion. By way of experiment,
the large artery of the thigh of a dog has been divided and
laid open; the animal bled till he fainted, and on recovering
had no return of the bleeding. On examining the artery, its
divided end was found plugged up by coagulated blood, and much
contracted in its diameter; this natural means, however, of
checking hæmorrhage, we shall afterwards find, is assisted by
the contractile power possessed by the vessel from whence it
is effused. Hence it appears that fainting is favorable to
checking hæmorrhages, as far as it puts a temporary check on
the circulation, and should always be encouraged to a certain
degree. Another cause which influences the coagulation of the
blood, is inflammatory diseases. Under such circumstances it
remains much longer in a fluid state, but coagulates at length
more firmly. This coagulation of the lymph is the first step
towards its conversion into various parts of the body, or the
union of divided parts. When, for example, the coagulating
lymph is thrown out upon inflamed internal parts of the body
which lie in contact, as the intestines or lungs, it becomes
solid, and connects them loosely together. Blood vessels shoot
into it, and convert it at length into cellular membrane,
forming what are called adhesions, and in a similar way it
is converted into the nature of various parts of the body.
We may therefore say, that the coagulating lymph is the most
important part of the blood, inasmuch as it is subservient
to the formation of various organs in the body. Many parts,
particularly the muscles, very nearly resemble it in their
nature.
[192] Substances may even be introduced into the blood
directly. By way of experiment, Ipecacuanha, or a small
portion of Emetic Tartar, or Jalap, have been infused into the
veins: the result of this has been found to be, that they have
produced the same effect as if introduced by the stomach; the
former produced vomiting, the latter purging.
[193] Mr. Hunter, however, found that this natural
inclination might be changed by education, for he taught
an Eagle, which is a carnivorous animal, to subsist on
farinaceous food alone. The plan he adopted was this: he began
by abstracting the flesh meat, and substituting bread and
butter, till at length the meat was entirely taken away; he
then by degrees diminished the quantity of butter, till at
length the animal fed on bread alone. It appears, however, from
experiment, that this transition cannot be made suddenly, as
the gastric juice of the animal is not adapted to act upon an
opposite kind of food. It has been found that a quantity of
pear or apple introduced into the stomach of a Buzzard Hawk
was not digested, but remained unacted upon when the fowl was
killed for inspection many hours afterwards; yet the stomach of
this animal habitually digested bone.
[194] Dr. A. Hunter says, “When we consider the delicacy
of the internal structure of the stomach, and the high and
essential consequence of its office, we may truly say, it is
treated with too little tenderness and respect on our parts.
The stomach is the chief organ of the human system, upon the
state of which all the powers and feelings of the individual
depend.
“The stomach is the kitchen that prepares our discordant
food, and which, after due maceration, it delivers over by
a certain undulatory motion, to the intestines, where it
receives a further concoction. Being now reduced into a white
balmy fluid, it is sucked up by a set of small vessels, called
lacteals, and carried to the thoracic duct. This duct runs up
the back-bone, and is in length about sixteen inches, but in
diameter it hardly exceeds a crow quill. Through this small
tube, the greatest part of what is taken in at the mouth
passes, and when it has arrived at its greatest height, it is
discharged into the left subclavian vein; when mixing with the
general mass of blood, it becomes, very soon, blood itself.”
[195] Dr. O. Gregory observes, “Animal heat is preserved
_entirely_ by the inspiration of atmospheric air! The lungs
which imbibe the oxygen gas from the air, impart it to the
blood; and the blood, in its circulation, gives out the
caloric to every part of the body. Nothing can afford a more
striking proof of creative wisdom, than this provision for
the preservation of an equable animal temperature. By the
decomposition of atmospheric air, caloric is evolved, and
this caloric is taken up by the arterial blood, without its
temperature being at all raised by the addition. When it passes
to the veins, its capacity for caloric is diminished, as much
as it had been before increased in the lungs: the caloric,
therefore, which had been absorbed, is again given out; and
this slow and constant evolution of the caloric in the extreme
vessels over the whole body, is the source of that uniform
temperature which we have so much occasion to admire. Dr.
Crawford ascertained, that whenever an animal is placed in a
medium the temperature of which is considerably high, the usual
change of arterial venous blood does not go on; consequently,
no evolution of caloric will take place, and the animal heat
will not rise much above the natural standard. How pleasing it
is to contemplate the arrangements which the Deity has made for
the preservation and felicity of his creatures, and to observe
that he has provided for every possible exigency!”--Lessons,
Astronomical and Philosophical, 4th edit. p. 87.
[196] A London Alderman, who had accidentally heard of the
thoracic duct, was so struck with the importance and delicacy
of the vessel, that he became very apprehensive lest it should
be in the least obstructed; and, being one day caught in a
crowd, from whence he could not extricate himself, he most
earnestly entreated those who pressed on him, to take care of
his thoracic duct.
[197] This is a good example of muscles, which, under
ordinary circumstances, are directed by the will, becoming
involuntary from an altered excitement.
[198] Dr. A. Hunter remarks, “Were it possible for us to
view through the skin and integuments, the mechanism of our
bodies, after the manner of a watch-maker when he examines
a watch, we should be struck with an awful astonishment!
Were we to see the stomach and intestines busily employed in
the concoction of our food by a certain undulatory motion;
the heart working, day and night, like a forcing pump; the
lungs blowing alternate blasts; the humors filtrating through
innumerable strainers; together with an incomprehensible
assemblage of tubes, valves, and currents, all actively and
unceasingly employed in support of our existence, we could
hardly be induced to stir from our places!”
[199] Mr. Cruikshank, late Professor of Chemistry at
Woolwich, judiciously observes, says Dr. Olinthus Gregory, that
the size of the body, the quantity of food taken in, the vigor
with which the system is acting, the passions of the mind,
and external heat or cold, are circumstances which will ever
occasion considerable variety in the quantity of the insensible
perspiration. This gentleman, assuming that the surface of the
hand is to that of the rest of the body as one to sixty (an
assumption which Mr. Abernethy thinks much too small for the
body,) and that every part of that surface perspired equally
with his hand, concluded that he lost during an hour, by
insensible perspiration from the skin, 3 ounces, 6 drams; and
in 24 hours, at that rate, would have lost 7 pounds, 6 ounces.
Also, that he lost 124 grains of vapor by respiration, in an
hour; or 6 ounces, 1 dram, and 36 grains, in 24 hours; which,
added to the former cutaneous exhalation, would make the whole
insensible perspiration, in 24 hours, equal to 8 pounds, 1
dram, and 36 grains: the evaporation from the lungs will be
little more than one-fifteenth of the whole.
Mr. Cruikshank has not the smallest doubt, but that
_electric fluid_ is also perspired from the pores of the skin:
it appearing to him impossible that an enraged Lion, or Cat,
should erect the hairs of the tail on any other principle:
indeed he strongly suspects that, as electric fire is now known
to be the prime conductor of the variation in the atmosphere,
so it is also the grand conductor of insensible perspiration.
He likewise states it as a matter beyond doubt, that,
independent of aqueous vapor (of fixed air and phlogiston,)
emitted from the skin in insensible perspiration, there is
an odorous effluvia, which, though generally insensible
to ourselves and the by standers, is perceptible to other
animals.--Hence it happens, that a Dog follows the footsteps of
his master by the smell; and, in like manner, with regard to
other animals: the Fox-Hound knows _afar_ the smell of the Fox;
the Pointer that of the Partridge, the Snipe, or the Pheasant;
and every carnivorous animal that of its prey.--Haüy’s Natural
Philosophy, vol. i, p. 27.
[200] Dr. Priestley has positively asserted, that the
doctrine of the soul has no foundation in reason or the
Scriptures. But Dr. Jortin, in his sermon on John xi, 25, vol.
vi, and Dean Sherlock, in his discourse on the immortality of
the soul, completely refute the Doctor’s arguments. In the
fourth volume of the Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical
Society of Manchester, there is a very valuable paper, by Dr.
Ferriar, proving, by evidence apparently complete, that every
part of the brain has been injured without affecting the act of
thought; the reasoning of which memoir, being built on matters
of fact and experience, appears to have shaken the modern
theory of the materialists from its very foundation.
[201] See Wesley’s Sermon on Heb. xi, 1.
[202] Dr. Scott’s Christian Life, vol. v, p. 14.
[203] Practical Treaties on the Holy Spirit, pp. 7, 8.
[204] See Dr. Beattie’s Theory of Language, chap. ii.
[205] It is very singular, says Nicholas, in his very
interesting history of New-Zealand, that the natives believe
that the first woman was made of one of man’s ribs; and, what
adds still more to this strange coincidence, their general
term for bone is _hevee_, which, for ought we know, may be
a corruption of the name of our first parent, communicated
to them, perhaps, originally, by some means or other, and
preserved, without being much disfigured, among the records of
ignorance.
[206] See Townsend’s Character of Moses, pp. 66-68.
* * * * *