believe; "for if we suppose," says a good writer, "the events of this life to have no reference to another, the whole state of man becomes not only inexplicable, but contradictory and inconsistent. The powers of the inferior animals are perfectly suited to their station. They know nothing higher than their present condition. In gratifying their appetites, they fulfil their destiny, and pass away. -Man, alone, comes forth to act a part which carries no meaning, and tends to no end. Endowed with capacities which extend far beyond his present sphere, fitted by his rational nature for running the race of immortality, he is stopped short in the very entrance of his course. He squanders his activity on pursuits which he discerns to be vain. He languishes for knowledge which is placed beyond his reach. He thirsts after a happiness which he is doomed never to enjoy. He sees and laments the disasters of his state, and yet, upon this supposition, can find nothing to remedy them. Has the eternal God any pleasure in sporting himself with such a scene of misery and folly as this life (if it had no connection with another) must exhibit to his eye? Did he call into existence this magnificent universe, adorn it with so much beauty and splendour, and surround it with those glorious luminaries which we behold in the heavens, only that some generations of mortal men might arise to behold these wonders, and then disappear for ever? How unsuitable in this case were the habitation to the wretched inhabitant! How inconsistent the commencement of his being, and the mighty preparation of his powers and faculties, with his despicable end! How contradictory, in fine, were every thing which concerns the state of man, to the wisdom and perfection of his Maker!"

But that there is such a state is clear from many passages of the New Testament: John v. 24; Acts vii. 9; Rom. viii. 10, 11; 2 Cor. v. 1, 2; Phil. i. 21; 1 Thess. iv. 14; 1 Thess. v. 10; Luke xvi. 22, &c. But though these texts prove the point, yet some have doubted whether there be anywhere in the Old Testament any reference to a future state at all. The case, it is said, appears to be this: the Mosaic covenant contained no promises directly relating to a future state; probably, as Dr. Warburton asserts, and argues at large, because

Moses was secure of an equal providence, and therefore needed not subsidiary sanctions taken from a future state, without the belief of which the doctrine of an universal providence cannot ordinarily be vindicated, nor the general sanctions of religion secured. But, in opposition to this sentiment, as Doddridge observes, "it is evident that good men, even before Moses, were animated by views of a future state, Heb. xi. 13, 16, as he himself plainly was, 24th to 26th verse; and that the promises of heavenly felicity were contained even in the covenant made with Abraham, which the Mosaic could not disannul. Succeeding providences also confirmed the natural arguments in its favour, as every remarkable interposition would do; and when general promises were made to the obedient, and an equal providence relating to the nation established on national conformity to the Mosaic institution, and not merely to the general precepts of virtue; as such an equal providence would necessarily involve many of the best men in national ruin, at a time when, by preserving their integrity in the midst of general apostacy, their virtue was most conspicuous; such good men, in such a state, would have vast additional reasons for expecting future rewards, beyond what could arise from principles common to the rest of mankind; so that we cannot wonder that we find in the writings of the prophets many strong expressions of such an expectation, particularly Gen. xlix. 18; Ps. xvi. 9 to 11; Ps. xvii. last verse; Ps. lxxiii. 17. 27; Eccl. iii. 15, 16, &c.; Eccl. vii. 12. 15; Is. iii. 10, 11; Ezek. xviii. 19. 21; Job xix. 23. 37; Dan. xii. 2; Is. xxxv. 8; Is. xxvi. 19. The same thing may also be inferred from the particular promises made to Daniel, Dan. xii. 13; to Zerubbabel, Hag. ii. 23; and to Joshua, the high priest, Zech. iii. 7; as well as from those historical facts recorded in the Old Testament of the murder of Abel, the translation of Enoch and Elijah, the death of Moses, and the story of the witch of Endor, and from what is said of the appearance of angels to, and their converse with, good men." See articles INTERMEDIATE STATE, RESURRECTION, and SOUL; also Doddridge's Lectures, lec. 216; Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, vol. ii. p. 553-568; Dr. Addington's Dissertations on the Religious Knowledge of the ancient Jews and

Patriarchs, containing an inquiry into the evidences of their belief and expectation of a future state; Blair's Sermons, ser. 15. vol. i.; Robinson's Claude,

GAIANITÆ, a denomination which derived its name from Gaian, a bishop of Alexandria, in the sixth century, who denied that Jesus Christ, after the hypostatical union, was subject to any of the infirmities of human nature.

GALILEAN, a name of reproach first given to our Saviour and his disciples by the Jews, and afterwards liberally used by the pagans. Julian the Apostate constantly employed it, and wished to have it established as the legal name by which the Christians should be designated. The Redeemer he called "the Galilean God," and with his dying breath thus gave vent to his rage, while forced to acknowledge his power: vEVIKηKas Falidate: “O Galilean, thou hast over

come!"

66

GALILEANS, a sect of the Jews which arose in Judea some years after the birth of our Saviour. They sprang from one Judas, a native of Gaulam, in Upper Galilee, upon the occasion of Augustus appointing the people to be mustered, which they looked upon as an instance of servitude which all true Israelites ought to oppose. They pretended that God alone should be owned as master and lord, and in other respects were of the opinion of the Pharisees; but as they judged it unlawful to pray for infidel princes, they separated themselves from the rest of the Jews, and performed their sacrifices apart. As our Saviour and his apostles were of Galilee, they were suspected to be of the sect of the Galileans; and it was on this principle, as St. Jerome observes, that the Pharisees laid a snare for him, asking, Whether it were lawful to give tribute to Cæsar? that in case he denied it, they might have an occasion of accusing him. GALLICAN. See CHURCH, GAL

LICAN.

GAZARES, a denomination which appeared about 1197 at Gazare, a town of Dalmatia. They held almost the same opinions with the Albigenses; but their distinguishing tenet was, that no human power had a right to sentence men to death for any crime whatever.

vol. i. p. 132; W. Jones's Works, vol. vi. ser. 12; Logan's Sermons, vol. ii. p. 413.

GEMARA. See TALMUD.

GENERAL CALL. See CALLING. GENERATION, ETERNAL, is a term used as descriptive of the Father's. communicating the Divine Nature to the Son. The Father is said by some divines to have produced the Word, or Son, from all eternity, by way of generation; on which occasion the word generation raises a peculiar idea: that procession which is really effected in the way of understanding, is called generation, because, in virtue thereof, the Word becomes like to Him from whom he takes the original; or, as St. Paul expresses it, the figure or image of his substance; i. e. of his being and nature. And hence it is, they say, that the second person is called the Son; and that in such a way and manner as never any other was, is, or can be, because of his own divine nature, he being the true, proper, and natural Son of God, begotten by him before all worlds. Thus, he is called his own Son, Rom. viii. 3, his only begotten Son, John iii. 16. Many have attempted to explain the manner of this generation by different similitudes; but as they throw little or no light upon the subject, we shall not trouble the reader with them. Some, however, suppose that the term Son of God refers to Christ as mediator; and that his sonship does not lie in his divine or human nature separately considered, but in the union of both in one person. See Luke i. 35; Matt. iv. 3; John i. 49; Matt. xvi. 16; Acts ix. 20. 22; Rom. i. 4. It is observed, that it is impossible that a nature properly divine should be begotten, since begetting, whatever idea is annexed to it, must signify some kind of production, derivation, and inferiority; consequently, that whatever is produced must have a beginning, and whatever had a beginning was not from eternity, as Christ is said to be. Col. i. 16, 17. That the sonship of Christ respects him as mediator, will be evident, if we compare John x. 30 with John xiv. 28. In the former it is said, "I and my Father are one;" in the latter, My Father is

66

greater than I." These declarations, however opposite they seem, equally respect him as he is the Son; but if his sonship primarily and properly signify the generation of his divine nature, it will be difficult, if not impossible, according to that scheme, to make them harmonize. Considered as a distinct person in the Godhead, without respect to his office as mediator, it is impossible that, in the same view, he should be both equal and inferior to his Father. Again, he expressly tells us himself, that "the Son can do nothing of himself; that the Father showeth him all things that he doth; and that he giveth him to have life in himself." John v. 19, 20. 26. Which expressions, if applied to him as God, not as mediator, will reduce us to the disagreeable necessity of subscribing either to the creed of Arius, and maintain him to be God of an inferior nature, and thus a plurality of Gods, or of embracing the doctrine of Socinus, who allows him only to be a God by office. But if this title belong to him as mediator, every difficulty is removed. And, lastly, it is observed, that though Jesus be God, and the attributes of eternal existence ascribed to him, yet the two attributes, eternal and son, are not once expressed in the same text as referring to eternal generation. This dogma, held by most systematic divines, according to which our Lord was the Son of God, with respect to his divine nature, by communication from the Father, who on this account is called nyn OcoTηTOS, the Fountain of Deity, is of considerable antiquity. It was customary for the fathers, after the council of Nice, to speak of the Father as ayevvηTOs, and to ascribe to him what they termed generatio activa; and of the Son as γεννητος, to whom they attributed generatio passiva. It was the essential property of the Father eternally to have the divine nature of or from himself, so that, with respect to him, it was underived; whereas it was the property of the Son to be eternally begotten of the Father, and thus to derive his essence from him. To this mode of representing the relations of these two persons of the Trinity, as it respects their essence, it has justly been objected, that it necessarily goes to subvert the supreme and eternal Deity of the Son, and to represent him as essentially derived and inferior; a doctrine nowhere taught in the Scriptures. Some prefer

saying that it was not the divine nature that was communicated to the Son, but only distinct personality; but this can scarcely be said to relieve the difficulty. In regard to this and all similar subjects, the safest way is to abstain from all metaphysical subtleties, and rest satisfied with the biblical mode of representation. That Christ is the Son of God in a sense perfectly unique, and that he was from eternity God, are truths which the Scriptures clearly teach, but wherein, in that sense, his filiation consisted, is a subject on which they are entirely silent. Every attempt to explain it has only furnished a fresh instance of darkening council, by words without knowledge. See article SON OF GOD; Owen on the Person of Christ; Pearson on the Creed; Ridgley's Body of Divinity, p. 73. 76, 3d edition; Gill's Ditto, p. 205, vol. i. 8vo edition; Lambert's Sermons, ser. 13, text John xi. 35; Hodson's Essay on the Eternal_Filiation of the Son of God; Watts's Works, vol. v. p. 77.

GENEROSITY, the disposition which prompts us to bestow favours which are not the purchase of any particular merit. It is different from humanity. Humanity is that exquisite feeling we possess in relation to others, so as to grieve for their sufferings, resent their injuries, or rejoice at their prosperity; and as it arises from sympathy, it requires no great selfdenial, or self-command; but generosity is that by which we are led to prefer some other person to ourselves, and to sacrifice any interest of our own to the interest of another. Generosity is peculiarly amiable when it is spontaneous and unsolicited—when it is disinterested

and when, in the distribution of its benefits, it consults the best season and manner in conferring them.

GENIUS, a good or evil spirit or dæmon, who, the ancients supposed, was set over each person to direct his birth, accompany him in his life, and to be his guard.

Genius signifies that aptitude which a man naturally possesses to perform well and easily that which others can do but indifferently, and with a great deal of pain.

GENTILE, in matters of religion, a Pagan, or worshipper of false gods. The origin of this word is deduced from the Jews, who called all those who were not of their name gojim i. e. gentes, which in the Greek translations of the

Old Testament is rendered a 60v, in which sense it frequently occurs in the New Testament; as in Matt. vi. 32, "All these things the nations or Gentiles seek." Whence the Latin church also used gentes in the same sense as our Gentiles, especially in the New Testament. But the word gentes soon got another signification, and no longer meant all such as were not Jews, but those only who were neither Jews nor Christians, but followed the superstitions of the Greeks and Romans, &c. In this sense it continued among the Christian writers, till their manner of speech, together with their religion, was publicly, and by authority, received in the empire, when gentiles, from gentes, came into use; and then both words had two significations: viz. in treatises or laws concerning religion, they signified Pagans, neither Jews nor Christians; and in civil affairs they are used for all such as were not Romans. See HEATHEN. PA

GANISM.

GENTLENESS, softness or mildness of disposition and behaviour. Little as this disposition is thought of by many, we find it considered in scripture as a characteristic of the true Christian. "The wisdom that is from above," saith St. James," is gentle," ch. iii. 17. "This gentleness, indeed, is to be distinguished from passive tameness of spirit, and from unlimited compliance with the manners of others. That passive tameness, which submits without a struggle to every encroachment of the violent and assuming, forms no part of Christian duty; but, on the contrary, is destructive of general happiness and order. That unlimited complaisance, which on every occasion falls in with the opinions and manners of others, is so far from being a virtue, that it is itself a vice, and the parent of many vices. It overthrows all steadiness of principle, and produces that sinful conformity with the world which taints the whole character. In the present corrupted state of human manners, always to assent and to comply, is the very worst maxim we can adopt. True gentleness, therefore, is to be carefully distinguished from the mean spirit of cowards and the fawning assent of sycophants. It renounces no just right from fear; it gives up no important truth from flattery: it is, indeed, not only consistent with a firm mind, but it necessarily requires a manly spirit and fixed principle, in order to give it any real

value. It stands opposed to harshness and severity, to pride and arrogance, to violence and oppression it is properly that part of charity which makes us unwilling to give pain to any of our brethren. Compassion prompts us to relieve their wants; forbearance prevents us from retaliating their injuries; meekness restrains our angry passions; candour our severe judgments; but gentleness corrects whatever is offensive in our manner, and, by a constant train of humane attentions, studies to alleviate the burden of common misery."

GENUFLEXION, the act of bowing or bending the knee, or rather of kneeling down. The Jesuit Rosweyd, in his Onomasticon, shows that genuflexion, or kneeling, has been a very ancient custom in the church, and even under the Old Testament dispensation; and that this practice was observed throughout all the year, excepting on Sundays, and during the time from Easter to Whitsuntide, when kneeling was forbidden by the council of Nice. Others have shown, that the custom of not kneeling on Sundays had obtained from the time of the apostles, as appears from St. Irenæus and Tertullian; and the Ethiopic church, scrupulously attached to the ancient ceremonies, still retains that of not kneeling at divine service. The Russians esteem it an indecent posture to worship God on the knees. The Jews usually prayed standing. Baronius is of opinion that genuflexion was not established in the year of Christ 58, from that passage in Acts xx. 36, where St. Paul is expressly mentioned to kneel down at prayer; but Saurin shows that nothing can be thence concluded. The same author remarks, also, that the primitive Christians carried the practice of genuflexion so far, that some of them had worn cavities in the floor where they prayed; and St. Jerome relates of St. James, that he had contracted a hardness on his knees equal to that of camels.

GESENIUS, WILLIAM, a celebrated orientalist and biblical critic, was born 1786, at Nordhausen, where his father, who was known as a respectable medical writer, was engaged in the practice of his profession. He was educated at the gymnasium of his native town, and at the universities of Helmstädt and Göttingen. His attention, however, was almost exclusively devoted to the study of the Oriental languages; and the necessity

which he soon perceived of a better grammar and lexicon of the Hebrew language, led him to devote himself entirely to this, and to the study of the Old Testament. This he did during a three years residence at Göttingen, as Magister legens and lecturer on theology, from 1806 to 1809, when he made preparations for his Hebrew lexicon. In 1809 he was appointed by the government of Westphalia, professor of ancient literature in the Catholic and Protestant gymnasium, at Heiligenstadt; after wards, in 1810, extraordinary, and in 1811, ordinary professor of theology at Halle. Here he attracted particular attention to the study of the Old Testament; and remaining after the restoration of the university in 1814, as Doctor of Theology, he wrote his Commentary on the origin, character, and authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which will always be regarded as a model in investigations of such a nature. In the summer of 1820 he made a scientific tour to Paris and Oxford, where he prepared collections in the Semitic languages, for lexicographical purposes, and also took a copy of the Ethiopean book of Enoch, with a view to future publication. In 1810 and 1812 appeared his Hebrew and German Lexicon, in two volumes, and in 1815 an abridgment of the same, a translation of which, by Mr. Gibbs, of Andover, has been published, both in America and England. The chief peculiarities of these valuable works are a just estimation of, and thorough examination of, all the sources of lexicography, a correct apprehension of the relation between the Hebrew and its cognate languages, a complete statement and explanation of the constructions and phrases which are derived from each word; a clear distinction between what belongs to the province of the lexicon, the grammar, and the exegetical commentary respectively, and attention to the various kinds of diction. Some excellent remarks, which have had no small effect in the dissemination of right views upon these subjects, are to be found in the prefaces to the lexicon. His version of Isaiah, with a commentary, is one of the ablest critical works that have ever appeared, but unfortunately the neological views of the author have deeply tinged many parts of his exposition, especially such as relate to the prophecies respecting the Messiah. The last twenty-six chapters of the book he

considers to have been written, not by Isaiah, but by some later author, an hypothesis which has been refuted by several writers, but by none more ably than by Hengstenberg, in his Old Testament Christology. Making deductions for these serious faults, it may nevertheless be asserted, that more philological, historical, and antiquarian research is to be found in this work than in any other commentary on the scriptures. The celebrity which Gesenius acquired by these labours has attracted a vast number of students to Halle, where he and Wegscheider take the lead of the supernaturalist party, and have for a time given eclat and currency to their principles; but of late their popularity as theologians has begun to decline, and the students are taught to discriminate between the speculating unbelieving philologist, and the profound, consistent, and pious divine.

GICHTEL, JOHN GEORGE, a mystic and fanatic, born at Ratisbon in 1638. In his sixteenth year he pretended to have divine visions and revelations; he afterwards went to Holland, where he attended to certain religious exercises, with a view to fit himself for the duties of a missionary in America. After enduring several persecutions in Germany, the result of the disturbances created by his doctrines, and suffering considerable opposition from a number of his followers, who withdrew from him that support for which he was entirely dependent on them, he died at Amsterdam in 1710. He wrote several works, which were published by himself or his disciples, who called themselves the Angelic Brethren. These works have recently been drawn forth from oblivion, and are held in great esteem by the present mystics of Germany.

GHOST, HOLY. See HOLY GHOST. GIFT OF TONGUES, an ability given to the apostles of readily and intelligibly speaking a variety of languages which they had never learnt. This was a most glorious and important attestation of the Gospel, as well as a suitable, and indeed, in their circumstances, a necessary furniture for the mission for which the apostles and their assistants were designed. Nor is there any reason, with Dr. Middleton, to understand it as merely an occasional gift, so that a person might speak a language most fluently one hour, and be entirely ignorant of it in the next; which neither agrees with what