2. Chapter I
Chapter I
Pet. 3:5-7, The new heaven and new earth — What the old world was — The new world, Isa. 51:15, 16; 65:17; 66:22 — The age to come —
The future world — Noah a righteous man — He had faith as an antediluvian — Theology restored and augmented after the flood in his family — The first express mention of the divine covenant — Promise and counter-stipulation belong to the nature of a covenant — In what respect a promise is called a covenant — ְּבִרית [covenant], its derivation — It often signifies a bare promise, 2 Sam. 23:5; Jer. 31:31, 32 — Διαθήκη
[testament/covenant], συνθήκη [agreement] — The origin of "covenant" — How covenants were anciently ratified, Jer. 34:18 — On the sign of the covenant — The rainbow in the cloud — Why the sign of the covenant is called a covenant — The nature of the Noahic covenant — Precepts added to the theology — Gen. 9:5, 6, exposition of the first post-diluvian precept concerning the non-shedding of blood — The manner of vengeance to be taken through the magistrate established therein — The opinion of Onkelos
— The origin of the law of retaliation — Exposition of the second precept,
concerning not eating flesh with blood, Gen. 9:2, 3 — The seven precepts given to the sons of Noah — What the Hebrews understand by them — The fictitious speech of Noah to his sons in Inghirami — The restoration of the Noahic church — Its duration — The sin of Ham — The triflings of the Jews
— The origin of the fable of the castration of Saturn — Why Canaan was cursed — New promises given to the reformed church — Its new defection
— The occasion of the defection — A narrative of the catholic defection of the Noahic church.
I. The origin and progress of that mixed theology — which consisted partly of the law of nature or the dictate of right reason, or the relics of the ἐνδιάθετου [internal] theology, and partly of the revelation made to Adam after the entrance of sin — we set out in the preceding dissertation. We also showed briefly therein the various degrees of that apostasy which at last brought about the total defection of almost the whole world from God, and the dreadful πανωλεθρίαν [utter destruction] and punishment of apostate theologians. To the setting out of the restoration, growth, progress, and events of that theology from the flood to the calling of Abraham — this we now immediately take in hand. The blessed Peter sets out the whole of this divine οἰκονομίαν [dispensation] as follows: Οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι, καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι' ὕδατος συνεστῶσα, τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ, δι' ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο· οἱ δὲ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ τῷ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ τεθησαυρισμένοι εἰσί, πυρὶ τηρούμενοι εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως καὶ ἀπωλείας τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων [The heavens existed of old, and the earth formed out of water and through water, by the word of God, through which the world that then was, being flooded with water, perished; but the heavens and earth that now are have been stored up by his word, being kept
for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men], 2 Pet.
3:5-7.
II. The apostle here makes mention of a twofold "world": that former one which had perished through water, and that then-present one to be consumed by fire; after the destruction of which he foretells the entrance of a third, v. 13: Καινοὺς δὲ οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν καινὴν κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα αὐτοῦ προσδοκώμεν, ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνη κατοικεῖ [But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells]. The apostle is treating in neither place of the visible heaven nor the earth with respect to their substance. For when the old world was destroyed by water, the framework of the heavens and earth nonetheless remained. That "world" therefore was the men living in the world. They being blotted out by the flood, another world had to be raised up for the duly performing of the worship of God. The foundations of this world God laid in the family of Noah; its whole fabric was completed by the erection and adorning of the Jewish church. And that was the world which the blessed Peter immediately foretold would be dissolved by fire — in the prophetic style, that is. So we read in Isaiah, ch. 51:15, 16: "I am the Lord your God, who parts the sea so that its waves roar — the Lord of hosts is his name — and I have put my words in your mouth and covered you in the shadow of my hand, to plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth, and to say to Zion, You are my people."
III. At the time therefore when God, dividing the sea and leading his people out of Egypt, entrusted to them his word or law together with the solemn prescription of his worship — forming them into a church for himself — he instituted and completed this new world, that heaven and earth. At the time when Peter wrote, this world — that is, the now apostate
Jewish church — was hastening to the destruction of fire, just as that old world precipitated itself into the flood. By the burning of the temple and the city, the framework of that world was dissolved. But since τοῦ αἰῶνος συντέλεια [the consummation of the age] had not yet come, the apostle bids the faithful to expect another world — new heavens and a new earth — according to God's promise. That promise stands at Isa. 65:17 and in the same words at ch. 66:22: "Behold, I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind." The prophet in those passages portrays the state of the church after the advent of Christ — namely, the time when God was about to take from among the Gentiles priests and Levites, as the words run at v. 21 of the last chapter; that is, when he was about to institute the evangelical ministry.
Hence that state of the church before the conflagration of this second world was designated "the age to come" and "the future world" — as Paul teaches us in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. 2:5 and also ch. 6:5. The first or old world therefore perished through the diluvian water; the apostle foretells that the second — then present — was to perish through fire, and confirms that the future one will endure to the consummation of the age. But let us return from this digression to the road.
IV. That Noah himself, of whom we are speaking, was a righteous man, pleasing and acceptable to God, is established by the manifold testimony of the Holy Spirit. Gen. 6:8, 9: "Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his generations, and he walked with God continually"; also v. 1, ch. 7: "You I have seen to be righteous before me in this generation." There is moreover an honourable mention made of him in both Old and New Testaments conformable to this testimony — which is rare and almost singular — Ezek.
14:14; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5. That he obtained righteousness through faith
the apostle proves in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. All saving faith looks to the promised Seed. This faith, moreover, the antediluvian had — for he was then adorned with the testimony of righteousness by God. He was therefore righteous and pleasing to God, walking before him blameless, by virtue of that Adamic antediluvian theology which we delivered in the preceding dissertation. But for the sake of Noah himself, and of the church to be restored in his family, that theology was immediately augmented from the flood with various degrees of light, which I shall briefly run through.
V. We divided the antediluvian theology of sinners above into three parts: the promise of grace, the law of nature, and the prescription of the instituted worship. By the new revelation made to Noah, the first was further augmented, the second more fully set out, the third established. For now, for the first time, God makes express mention of a covenant, Gen. 9: ַוֲאִני ִהְנִני
ֵמִקים ֶאת־ְּבִריִתי ִא ְּתֶכם — "And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you."
We proved above that God ratified a gracious pact exhibiting spiritual benefits in the Mediator with Adam in that most celebrated promise of the Seed. For the solemnity of the divine covenant, there is required a promise of life and of all means necessary for obtaining it graciously, together with the exaction of obedience and an expressed counter-stipulation. But it is not necessary that all these should be expressed together at the same time wherever only a covenant is treated.
VI. A promise always includes the requirement of obedience. For obedience is nothing other than the due observance of the means instituted for obtaining the promised life. But where the obedience required in a covenant is only moral, and therefore has its general foundation elsewhere than in the covenant itself — namely, in the law of nature — and is rendered acceptable and pleasing to God through the covenant alone, since
the promise is of pure revelation, the name of covenant is peculiarly ascribed to the promise. And so it is in this place: the promise is called a covenant. But also for other reasons promise and covenant signify the same thing — it is not the place here to set them out. A few things may be added concerning the word itself. ְּבִרית [berit] some take to be derived from ָּבָרה or ָּבַרת [barah/barat], "to cut" or "to hew asunder." So Grotius, Annotations at the beginning of the Gospel according to Matthew, because in covenants victims were slain. Others refer it to what also signifies "to choose" and "to arrange" — and that derivation of the name pleases the learned and pious
Cocceius, On the Covenant of God, ch. 1: from ָּבַרר [barar], "to choose," "to purify," Mercer on the root ָּבַרת. Wherever it takes its origin, it frequently signifies a bare "promise": 2 Sam. 23:5; Jer. 31:31, 32; also a gratuitous and irrevocable "gift," Num. 18:9; and a "statute" or decree of God, Jer. 33:21.
And very frequently it is employed where there is no place for a solemn agreement or compact of parties. In the New Testament it is rendered by διαθήκην [testament/covenant]; which word has equally broad scope as ְּבִרית. Grotius testifies that it is used for laws, engagements, and testaments.
The word συνθήκη [agreement], which properly signifies a "covenant," is not used in the New Testament to explain ְּבִרית. The Septuagint translators perpetually render that word by διαθήκη; differently, Aquila and Symmachus, who also use συνθήκη. Our [John] Ball, in his treatise On the Divine Covenant, 1 ch. 1, affirms that the Septuagint renders ְּבִרית by συνθήκη at Isa. 28:15. But the learned man is mistaken; for the word they there translate by συνθήκη is ֹחֶזה [hozeh], which properly signifies "vision"; but at the beginning of the verse, after their usual manner, they place διαθήκη instead of ְּבִרית. The best reason for this is given by the same
Grotius: "Συνθῆκαι [agreements]," he says, "receive the force of a bond
from the consenting testimony of two wills; but what Moses and others call ְּבִרית is for the most part of such a kind as to require no consent on the other party's side, since its binding force rests on the command and authority of God alone." So it is — the covenant of God does not hang upon our will or upon any conditions to be performed by us; its whole force and effect comes from the authority, grace, and faithfulness of God himself. For the promise of grace is absolute, and there is no condition of the covenant that is not contained in the promise itself. Those therefore act absurdly and preposterously who attempt to set out the nature of the divine ְּבִרית from the nature of a covenant commonly ratified between men. Nor does "covenant" even in Latin always denote a solemn "agreement of parties," but sometimes a law or constitution — so in Virgil, Aeneid I, 66:
"And he gave him a king who knew, by a fixed law,Both to press and, when bidden, to loose the reins."
We confess, however, that this promise had the true nature of a covenant; and therefore Chrysostom, Homily XXVIII on Genesis, interprets τὴν διαθήκην [the covenant] of the Septuagint in this place by συνθήκας
[agreements].
VII. Furthermore: "covenant" — fœdus — is derived from "striking" — ferire; the origin of the name comes from a vile superstition. The custom of entering into covenants, from which the name derived, is narrated among others by Polybius, Bk. III, ch. 25: "The fetial," he says, "holding a stone in his hands, after agreement on the covenant had been reached between the parties, spoke these words: if I make this covenant and this oath rightly and without evil intent, may the gods grant all good things to me; but if otherwise — whether I act or think otherwise — all others remaining safe in their own laws, their own household gods, their own temples, their own
graves, may I alone perish, as this stone falls from my hands." Others record that covenants were entered into differently, and that the fetial used these words: "So may the great Jupiter strike me foully, as I foully slaughter this pig, if I do not keep the compact of the covenant." And so striking the pig he killed it with a blow of the stone. So almost Livy, Bk. I, ch. 24:
"Hear, Jupiter; hear, father of the fetials: as those things have been publicly read out, first and last from those tablets or wax, without evil intent, and as they have been most correctly understood here today, let not the Roman people be the first to depart from those laws. If it should first depart by public counsel and evil intent, then do you, Jupiter, strike the Roman people as I today strike this pig — and strike them the more, the more you are able and mighty.' Having said this, he struck the pig with a flint stone." In the same sense the poet:
"Armed men, holding phials before the altars of Jove, Stood, and joined the covenant over a slaughtered sow." — Aeneid, Bk.
VIII, 640.
And:
"A priest in pure vestments Brought the young of a bristly sow." — Bk. XII, 169.
VIII. It is probable that this custom of ratifying covenants flowed — not without the intervention of corrupt superstition — from that ancient practice of entering into fixed and solemn compacts through sacrifices, and through the division of the victim into two parts between which those entering the covenant had to pass. Homer pursues this custom at length in Iliad III, 252, in the covenant that preceded the μονομαχίαν [single combat/battle] of Paris and Menelaus: Ἵν' ὅρκια πιστὰ τάμηαι [that you may cut faithful oaths]. On which words Eustathius: Τὸ τάμνειν δὲ ὅρκια παρ' Ὁμήρῳ καὶ Ἡροδότῳ τὸ
θῦσαι τὰ ἐπὶ ὅρκῳ σφάγια δηλοῖ [Cutting oaths in Homer and Herodotus signifies sacrificing the victims offered at an oath]. For τάμνειν [to cut] is said Ionically for τέμνειν [to cut]. In this manner was established the covenant between the princes of Judah and the king of Babylon, which God calls his own on account of the invocation of his name, Jer. 34:18: "I will deliver the men who transgressed my covenant, who did not perform the words of the covenant which they made before me, when they cut the calf in two and passed between its parts." And again, v. 19: "Who passed between the parts of the calf." Those entering the covenant and passing between the parts of the victim loaded themselves with a curse, devoting themselves to such a cutting apart if they did not stand by the appointed pact. So Agamemnon prays to the gods, Iliad III, 279:
Ὅς τις κ' ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ· Ὑμεῖς μάρτυρές ἐστε, φυλάσσετε δ' ὅρκια πιστά· [Whoever shall swear a false oath: be you witnesses, and guard the faithful covenants.]
After which he adds at v. 292:
Ἦ, καὶ ἀπὸ στομάχους ἀρνῶν τάμε νηλέϊ χαλκῷ· [He spoke, and cut the throats of the lambs with pitiless iron.]
Devoting the perjurers to a like death: Neh. 10:29, "We made a covenant and took an oath to walk in the law of God." Hence perhaps that threatening against the unfaithful servant: Διχοτομήσει αὐτόν [he shall cut him asunder]
— that is, the Master, Matt. 24:51 — for neglect of the covenant, shall divide him into parts. And from this cutting of the victim, "to cut" in Hebrew means "to strike a covenant": 2 Chron. 7:18, "And I will establish the throne of your kingdom as ָּכַר ִּתי [I covenanted] with David your father"
— Ὡς διεθέμην [As I disposed], the Septuagint renders; "As I have
promised," the Vulgate translator; "As I have covenanted," our vernacular translation. Literally "I cut," "I severed" — the same verb is used in the same manner in Hag. 2 at v. 5. But these things do not pertain to the simple
ְּבִרית [covenant].
IX. And this was the first degree of progress in post-lapsarian theology.
For by this revelation made to Noah, that communion which obtains between God and sinners in the Mediator is for the first time expressly called a covenant. That name — most full of consolation, clearly declaring the divine love and faithfulness — is laid as a foundation for the new church to be erected in the family of Noah.
X. Furthermore: God now for the first time establishes a visible sign of the covenant — namely, "the rainbow in the cloud," Gen. 9:11-13. Not indeed that he now for the first time sets a rainbow in the cloud; but he now for the first time sets a rainbow in the cloud as a sign of the covenant. In this manner the sacraments of the New Testament appear capable of being called ֹאתֹות ְּבִרית [signs of the covenant]. Also for the sake of this sign, the promise is called a covenant. For a promise together with a visible sign has the proper nature of a covenant. Hence the sign itself is sometimes called a covenant: Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη [This cup is the new covenant], Luke 22:20. It is true that only temporal things — τῶν βιωτικῶν
[earthly matters] — are expressly mentioned here, and the sign of the covenant directly regards a temporal benefit. Nevertheless, spiritual grace
— or the gratuitous love of God especially toward the faithful — is chiefly intended. For such was the οἰκονομίᾳ [dispensation] of religious institutions before Christ was exhibited in the flesh. But all these things were σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν [a shadow of good things to come], Heb. 10:1, of which Christ is ἀρχιερεύς [the high priest], ch. 9:11. And this ְּבִרית עֹוָלם
[everlasting covenant] existed only in Christ. Temporal benefit indeed flowed from it to all; but the spiritual grace of the covenant ratified in Christ pertains to the elect alone.
XI. And in this manner the Adamic antediluvian theology was augmented — by new revelation, by the appellation of covenant, and by the visible sign. From this the faith and hope of the theologians were confirmed.
Moreover, the designation of the rainbow in the cloud as a sign of the covenant pertains to the instituted worship. To the promise therefore was added the name of covenant; to the instituted worship, a new sacrament — by which two things the two former parts of that theology were amplified.
XII. Furthermore, to amplify this theology, precepts were also added to it, so that after the notable fall it might rise more illustrious on every side. The first concerned manslaughter, or the non-shedding of human blood. For the first and last care is for life; the rest are subordinate to it. The precept stands at Gen. 9:5, 6: "But your blood — the blood of your lives — I will require; from every beast I will require it, and also from the hand of man; from the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."
XIII. A solemn institution of vengeance for the violent shedding of human blood is here established. The shedding itself was prohibited by the law of nature — this both the crime and the punishment of Cain demonstrate. Indeed, all violence against others rises so much against the dictate of right reason that that unbridled rage by which sinners before the flood overwhelmed one another as if by assault was itself the most serious cause of the flood. But the solemn manner of punishing violence through the magistrate — extending beyond the boundaries of private families, and established by mutual consent of the many — had not yet been constituted.
God, therefore, granting the habitable world to the sons of Noah, laid this obligation upon all universally — that for the preservation of political society and public peace among all, they should constitute a magistrate among themselves. Hence the magistrate is ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσις [a human creation], yet erected on no unstable foundation — namely, on the command of God.
XIV. These words are therefore rightly expounded by the paraphraser Onkelos: "Whoever sheds the blood of a man — by witnesses, from the sentence of judges, shall his blood be shed." By ָּבָאָדם [in man], "in man," he understands fit witnesses among men. Nor does Jonathan differ: "He who sheds the blood of a man — by witnesses, judges shall condemn him to death; but he who sheds without witnesses — the Lord of the world will exact vengeance from him on the day of the great judgment." Grotius thinks that the natural right of retaliation is here hinted at, "because public courts had not yet been established." But the natural right of retaliation did not originate only now. And although public courts had not yet been established
— yet precisely so that they should be constituted, now that the human race had grown large, lest the severe antediluvian age filled with unbridled violence should return — it is provided here that they should be. The magistrate is therefore instituted by God, and the sword is placed in his hands — as Münster rightly says on the passage.
XV. To this precept was also added that concerning not eating flesh together with blood, which is the life of the flesh. Since the investigation of this matter has more labour than utility, having applied a few words to its explanation, let us dismiss it.
XVI. Very many affirm that it was not permitted to men before the flood to eat flesh. For whatever privilege there is in the eating of flesh appears to
be finally granted at Gen. 9:3: ָּכל־ֶרֶמׂש ֲא ֶׁשר הּוא־ַחי ָלֶכם ִיְהֶיה ְלָאְכָלה ְּכֶיֶרק ֵע ֶׂשב
ָנַת ִּתי ָלֶכם ֶאת־ ֹּכל [Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything]. These words, compared with those by which God grants dominion over all animals to man at v. 2, plainly show that they had not eaten flesh. Hence the report of abstinence from animals reached the nations — Ovid, Metamorphoses, Bk. I, Fable 3, v. 103:
"Content with foods that no compulsion grew, They gathered the fruits of the arbutus,Strawberries from the hills,
Cornelian cherries, and blackberries clinging to the hard bramble, And acorns that had fallen from the broad tree of Jupiter."
And again, Bk. XV, Fable 2, v. 96:
"But that ancient age which we have called the Golden Age Was blessed with the fruits of trees and the herbs the ground puts forth,
And did not defile the mouth with blood.
Then birds safely moved their wings through the air, And the hare wandered fearless through the midst of the fields,
Nor had its own trustfulness hung the fish upon a hook."
Virgil also, Georgics II, v. 536:
"Before the sceptre of the Dictaean king, And before the impious race feasted on slaughtered bullocks,
Golden Saturn lived this life upon the earth."
And among our own writers, Tertullian, On Jewish Foods — if he is the author of that book — ch. 2: "The first food for men," he says, "was solely the produce and fruit of trees." Hence the philosophers dispute at length as to how it came about that men were ever induced to eat flesh. Plutarch, after neatly attacking the practice, ascribes it to necessity, On the Eating of Flesh.
Porphyry at length contends that the custom flowed from participation in sacrifices, On Abstinence from Animals, Bk. II. Casaubon shows from this that all animals that were slaughtered were called ἱερεῖα [sacred victims] by the ancient Greeks, Observations on Athenaeus, Bk. I, ch. 11 — because, that is, they ate the flesh of no animals except those slaughtered for use in sacrifices. So, before the flood, whole burnt offerings alone were in use.
With the permission of eating flesh, feasts from sacred rites accompanied — which is also probable before the law, though Selden defends the contrary, On Natural Law among the Hebrews, Bk. III, ch. 8. For the beginnings of the eating of flesh, consult Bereshit Rabbah, Parasha 34;
Joseph Albo, Book of Principles, Pt. 3, ch. 14.
XVII. Flesh being permitted, the eating of it with blood is forbidden at v.
4: ַאְך ָּב ָׂשר ְּבַנְפׁשֹו ָדמֹו ֹלא ֹתאֵכלּו [But flesh with its life — its blood — you shall not eat]. It is not the eating of blood itself, but of flesh with blood, that is forbidden. It has been shown that the long-lived men of the early age were prone to cruelty — hence the earth was filled with violence before the flood. That men are rendered savage by eating raw flesh and blood still almost palpitating with motion, experience among the American Indians teaches. To counteract that vice — at the boundary of which, above all others, the human race destitute of the Word of God appears to be placed — this prohibition of eating flesh with blood was given. Some understand this of a limb torn from a living animal. That barbarous Americans still delight in this food is reported. So Aben Ezra on the passage: "For the reason that I permitted you the eating of the flesh of animals, you ought not to be cruel toward the beasts themselves, so as to eat a limb from a living animal." That the more recent Jews have been led over to this opinion by hatred of Christians — that is, of the Greek Christians, who, as Tertullian says, still
abstain from sausages distended with blood — Grotius judges. To me it scarcely appears that the eating of blood that has already grown cold is here prohibited. Nor can this be proved from the text by any adequate argument.
Indeed, it is not even blood primarily, directly, or at all that is forbidden; much less the eating of it separated from flesh. The object of the prohibition is flesh, affected in a particular manner — ְּבַנְפׁשֹו [in its life], that is, while it is still animated with living blood. And Stephen Curcellaeus appears to me to have wasted his effort in a posthumous dissertation on the eating of blood, in which he contends that this question is of some moment in Christian practice. See Ludovicus De Dieu on the passage. Whether ֵאֶבר ִמן
ַהַחי [eber min ha-hai] — "a limb from a living thing," that is, with blood still dripping — or ָּדם ִמן ַהַחי [dam min ha-hai] — "blood of a still-living animal," or "blood still pulsating in the flesh" — is forbidden, is uncertain.
XVIII. To this head also belong those seven πολυστίλλητα [muchcelebrated/famous] precepts which it is reported that God gave to the sons of Noah. They are customarily reviewed as follows:
1. ַעל ֲע ֹבָדה ָזָרה — Concerning alien worship.
2. ַעל ִּבְרַּכת ַה ֵּׁשם — Concerning the cursing of the Name or the divine power.
3. ַעל ְׁש ִפיכּות ָּדִמים — Concerning the shedding of blood.
4. ַעל ִּגיּלּוי ֲעָריֹות — Concerning the uncovering of shameful things.
5. ַעל ַהָּגֵזל — Concerning robbery.
6. ַעל ַהִּדיִנים — Concerning judgments.
7. ַעל ֵאֶבר ִמן ַהַחי — Concerning a limb of a living animal.
XIX. By the first, idolatry of every kind is prohibited. Concerning the sense and interpretation of the second, the learned are not so agreed — the dispute arises from the ambiguous use of the word ְָּבַר [barak], which signifies both to bless and also to curse. Some state the words affirmatively and wish it to be understood as requiring the blessing of the divine name — that is, true worship — as opposed to the foreign worship of the first. The greater number take it negatively, concerning not cursing the name of God.
The third is concerning murder. The fourth concerns adultery and all unlawful intercourse. The fifth expresses the eighth commandment of the Decalogue. Political governance is instituted by the sixth; and the last teaches mortals to abhor all cruelty.
XX. That these precepts were given to Noah and his sons in the first year after the flood is asserted by Genebrard, Chronicle at Year of the World
1656: "Seven precepts are given," he says, "which the Hebrews call partly the precepts of the sons of Noah, partly the precepts of nature, and they consider them to be binding upon the nations also." This persuasion flowed from Jewish traditions. Mention of them is most frequent in both Talmuds and in the writings of very many rabbis. But it is false that the Jews affirm these precepts were given to Noah and his sons — that is, to those four men
— immediately after the flood. By Noachides or sons of Noah they understand all the nations distinct from themselves; but themselves they call
Abrahamites and sons of Israel, in contrast to the sons of Noah — absurdly, as if Abraham and Israel were not sons of Noah. But they love to speak so.
By Noachides they understand all those who proceeding from Noah enjoyed no special spiritual privilege. When they affirm that these precepts were given to those, they mean nothing other than that these are the general dictates of right reason, or the heads of natural law carrying binding force
for all those destitute of supernatural revelation; but that they themselves are bound moreover by the written law. Hence Seder Olam, ch. 5; and Sefer
Melakhim, ch. 9 affirm that the first six precepts were transmitted to Adam — thereby showing them to be common dictates of nature, or universal heads of natural law. They assert that the last was added to Noah — interpreting by it that commandment concerning not eating flesh with blood: Manasseh, Conciliator, Question II on Deuteronomy. For the rest, it is well known that John Selden illuminated these precepts with most learned commentaries, to which we refer the studious reader in these matters.
XXI. I am unwilling to append here the speech of Noah to the posterity he brought with him to Italy, which Curtius Inghiramus published among the fragments of Etruscan antiquities, as though it were to occupy some place in this expansion of antediluvian theology. For the whole drama concerning the invented globes which were supposed to contain little histories of the antiquities of Etruria from the arrival of Noah in Italy down to the Catilinian War appears to me — and not to me alone — to be the most laborious of fictions, by a learned man indeed, but one who abused his leisure and his genius far too much — indeed impiously. Since, however, the author of the drama observed τὸ πρέπον [propriety] in the speech attributed to Noah, I have judged it should be permitted here for the reader's judgment. The title of the globe in which the speech was deposited is this:
"NOA VANDIMON." Then: "These are the words of the great Vandimon, which I, Ancus Caecinna, have transcribed." The speech is as follows:
"Hear, my sons and grandsons, my words, and with your ears receive what your father speaks to you. Blessed is God, before whose sight I found grace, who having rescued me from the waters, preserved me to repair the human
race, which was blotted out by the angry God with rains and floods, lest what God had made should entirely perish. Therefore be not ungrateful to the greatest Aesar; fear him alone, serve him from your minds, because he is worthy, and because he has done many good things for you, and because he is God. If the greatest Aesar shall always be God to you, nothing will be lacking to you. Let his altar not be polluted; let no man seek the life of his brother, as Cain did. Let there be a bond of peace among you, and let it never be broken. You have this city, which I have built upon this mountain; when this shall not be sufficient for you — for you must multiply — you will be able to build others upon the same mountain; and if the mountain shall not be sufficient, choose healthful places in which you may be able to build others. And if there are no dissensions among you, all things will prosper for you. He who does not fear God and who dissents from his brothers, let him be cast out from you, because the discord of a brother corrupts everything. My sons, do not provoke God again in fornication, in iniquity, and in wickedness; but remember God who made you, delivered you from the waters, and created all things for you, and subjected all things to you. God exalts the good, destroys the impious; love him alone, and do all things in fear of him; for doing these things you shall be filled with abundance of grain, wine, and oil, and the sons of your brothers shall serve you. Your kingdom shall remain for ever. Guard always the sacred rites, and ceremonies, and all the things I leave to you; and teach your sons these things. May God bless you, and fill you with every blessing: and may he swiftly send a king to rescue you from the power of another." So he — whose triflings I wonder ever pleased any learned person, since every page of the whole book sufficiently indicates fraud and imposition.
XXII. And such was the post-diluvian theology: namely, that natural Adamic theology destined to a new end and assigned to new uses through the promise of the Messiah, conformable to that state into which Satan through sin had by evil design enticed all men — augmented and restored by new revelation, the renewal of the solemn covenant, a visible sign, and various precepts — which the church of eight persons had as the rule of their faith, obedience, and whole divine worship. We have no cause to doubt that many furnished with it spent their lives in the highest reverence toward
God, in piety, faith, love, and obedience; in gentleness, charity, mercy, justice, and fidelity toward their own kind; in simplicity and candour of all manners, and the remaining virtues by whose benefit men are renewed into the image of God — even at the smallest outward degree of revelations, provided the Holy Spirit was present to irradiate the minds of men with his saving light.
XXIII. By the benefit of this theology, the reformed church — as to external profession and ὁμολογίαν [confession] — walked on the earth pure and acceptable to God for forty years or thereabouts. For nothing that contaminated it in any way has been committed to memory, except after the birth — and perhaps a few years of growth — of Canaan, the fourth and youngest son of Ham. The long-concealed impiety of Ham at last broke out.
What it was, the Holy Spirit shows at Gen. 9:22. The sin was against the dictates of right reason, which, as Aristotle testifies, teach all men γονεῖς τιμᾶν [to honour parents]. So also Plutarch, On Brotherly Love: Πάντες λέγουσι καὶ ᾄδουσιν ὡς γονεῦσι τιμὴν μετὰ θεοὺς πρώτην καὶ μεγίστην ἥτε φύσις, ὅ τε τὴν φύσιν σώζων νόμος ἀπέδωκε. Καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτι μᾶλλον ἄνθρωποι κεχαρισμένον θεοῖς δρῶσιν, ἢ τοκεῦσιν αὐτῶν καὶ τροφεῦσι παλαιὰς ἐπὶ νέαις δανεισθείσας χάριτας προθύμως ἐκτίνοντες. Οὐδ' αὖ
πάλιν μείζων ἐπίδειξις ἀθέου γέγονε τῆς περὶ γονεῖς ὀλιγωρίας καὶ πλημμελείας· διὸ τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους κακῶς ποιεῖν ἀπείρηται, μητρὶ δ' αὐτοῦ καὶ πατρὶ τὸ μὴ παρέχειν ἑαυτοὺς δρῶντας ἀεὶ καὶ λέγοντας ἀφ' ὧν εὐφρανοῦνται, κἂν μὴ προσῇ τὸ λυποῦν, ἀνόσιον ἡγοῦνται καὶ ἄθεσμον —
"All say and sing that nature, and the law that preserves nature, have assigned to parents the first and greatest honour after the gods; and there is nothing that men do more pleasing to the gods than when they eagerly discharge to their own parents and fosterers old debts of gratitude added to new. And again, there is no greater demonstration of impiety than contempt of and offence against parents. Hence, we are forbidden to do harm to others; but not to give themselves to their mother and father — always doing and saying those things from which they will rejoice, even if no harm is added — is held impious and unlawful." This he says admirably.
Hierocles and virtually the entire chorus of the wise have similar sentiments. It is therefore remarkable that some, on account of those words of Gen. 9:24 — ַוֵּיַדע ֵאת ֲא ֶׁשר־ָע ָׂשה לֹו ְּבנֹו ַהָּקָטן [And he knew what his youngest son had done to him] — contend that not Ham but Canaan is to be understood. "For what," they say, "did Ham do to his father? He was merely a messenger to his brothers of his father's shame." These are the words of the great Scaliger in his Refutation of the Speech of David
Paraeus. That, I say, is what he did — he openly and publicly transgressed the law of nature, which is clearly established from the contrary act of his brothers setting against his impiety. He showed his father's nakedness τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἐπιγελῶν δείκνυσιν [laughing to his brothers, he shows], as Josephus rightly says, Antiquities, Bk. I, ch. 1. He therefore sinned against the greatest principles of that theology which was the foundation and norm of the church, of worship, and of obedience.
XXIV. The sin of Ham, therefore, holy Scripture, as we have shown, sets out clearly enough. What certain persons add to that narrative are conjectures — indeed the ravings of dreamers. The rabbis trifle that he not only saw or observed with a certain joy and mockery the nakedness of his father, but that he castrated him, or bewitched him by magical arts so that he could no longer beget children — Rashi on Gen. ch. 9. Boissard in his
Life of Apollonius clings to their fables, and Athanasius Kircher in his work On the Origin of Letters and Obelisks, ch. 2, appears to give them credence.
Hence almost all suspect that from this arose the fable of Saturn cutting off the genitals of his father Heaven — as Lactantius, Bk. I, ch. 12 — or Jupiter cutting Saturn himself with a sickle. And that is indeed very plausible — although, to confess the truth, Porphyry in his book On the Cave of the Nymphs in Ithaca accommodates the whole fable to cryptic natural theology so cleverly that I could almost believe that the first fabulists had something of this kind in mind. For the rest, the curse is expressly pronounced upon Canaan — either because he was at that time most especially his father's delight, being his youngest son; or because he stood by his father in the sin and the nefarious spectacle; or because this family among the posterity of Ham was to be the first to depart from the true church and the worship of God; or for the consolation of the Israelites about to enter the promised land, so that they might understand that the nation with which they were about to engage in war was accursed and once for all devoted to servitude and destruction. However that may be, it is most certain that Ham himself was cursed in the person of his son — that is, was ejected from the family of God. But remarkable — or rather laughable — are the things certain of the ancients trifle about the passion of Christ prefigured in the drunkenness of Noah, concerning the cross, the sacraments, the nations, the Jews, and
the ministers of the word — all of which they supposed themselves to have seen in the wine, Ham, Japheth, and the garment.
XXV. On account of this sin therefore — by which his long-concealed hypocrisy burst forth to the gravest scandal of the church and openly revealed itself — Ham was cursed by his father, who still presided over the whole church under God with paternal authority. And in his ejection from the fellowship of the pious we have another — and illustrious — example of ecclesiastical reformation. For reformation of the church must first be attempted through the removal of sinners from the assembly and communion of those who rightly worship God through faith. We gave the example of this in the post-lapsarian Adamic church above. But when the company of the contumacious grows stronger, the separation of the faithful from their assemblies takes its place.
XXVI. In this manner therefore the reformation of the new church was instituted. For such is the infirmity of all and the wickedness of many, that no church from the beginning of the world has ever been able to endure long without some notable reformation. To this recently reformed church new promises were given — partly for the consolation of their most wretched fortune, partly as spurs to more exact obedience and to living before God with the utmost care and diligence. Gen. 9:26, 27: "Blessed be
Jehovah the God of Shem; and God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem."
XXVII. That Ham, driven from solemn worship of God by the paternal curse, also fled all the assemblies of the pious — this is beyond doubt. But the time had not yet come for the human race to be scattered into the various parts of the earth. With his brothers and their posterity therefore,
Ham and his people continued to dwell under the same region of the sky.
Hence arose a new source of evil; hence again sprouted the seat of defection in the church so recently emerged from the flood and newly reformed. That Noah, Shem, Japheth, and their pious sons and grandsons endeavoured to preserve the purity of the worship of God according to the canons of that theology with which they were furnished, safe and sound in the church — no one doubts. Both their own piety and the consideration of their duty toward others required it. But that from their posterity very many, carried away by the wicked seductions and examples of the Hamites — having themselves also a nature headlong toward every wickedness — foully and almost universally defected from the governance and worship of God within a few years, we shall understand from what followed. For in the one hundred and first year after the flood, covered with crimes, with reckless and contumacious pride, the crowd of apostates openly set aside the authority, discipline, and warnings of Noah and rushed headlong toward every wickedness. And since the humble, peaceable, and pious manner of Noah's life was most displeasing to them, they went in every contrary direction. Casting off therefore all reverence for the divine power and puffed up with I know not what pride, they set themselves to building a tower by which they might gain a name and glory for themselves. But committing great things — hateful to God — the dreadful judgment of the confusion of languages seized them and scattered them over the whole face of the earth. From that day until the advent of the promised Messiah, God permitted the greatest part of the human race to walk in their own ways.
1. The English title of John Ball's book is A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (1645). It is available from https://www.monergism.com/treatisecovenant-grace-gospel-grace-adam-christ-ebook .