3dly. This body of fire, generally attended by and subsisting in a cloud, is styled "the glory of the Lord;" and always accompanied the appearance of the Cherubim. may, and, it is apprehended, ought to be duct of his people; to accept the sacrifices rendered, "A devouring fire turning or roll-offered to him; and favorably to regard ing upon itself;" as the Cherubim, which the prefigurative atonement made by "the Ezekiel saw, are said to have stood in the sprinkling of blood, without which there midst of a fire, "catching, or infolding it- was (after the fall) no remission?" And self." The expressions are equivalent, and all this was done "to KEEP," or Preserve, correspond exactly. "the way to the tree of life," immortality being now the object of a new covenant, with other conditions. There were good reasons why our first parent should not be suffered, in the state to which he had reduced himself, to "put forth his hand, and take and eat." The dispensation of Eden was at an end. Old sacraments were abolished, and new ones. were to be instituted. In the spirit of repentance and faith the delinquents were to wait, "till one happier Man should regain the blissful seat," and open the kingdom of heaven to all believers;" himself the true TREE OF LIFE IN THE PARADISE OF GOD. 4thly. The most ancient expositions left in the world, which are the two Jewish Targums, paraphrase the verse thus: "And he thrust out the man, and caused the glory of his presence to dwell of old, at the east of the garden of Eden, above the two Cherubim. " 5thly. If such be the real import of the passage, and it relate only to the manifestation of the divine presence, by its well known symbol, above or between the Cherubim, may we not fairly and reasonably conclude, that the design of such manifestation, at the east of the garden of Eden, was the same as it was confessedly afterwards in the tabernacle and temple; namely, to reveal the will of God for the con- patriarchal dispensation. To the learned and candid of all denominations these remarks are submitted. If there be anything in them, the text in question, which has been so long the butt of infidels, and the stumbling-block of believers, not only becomes cleared of its difficulties, but throws a light and a glory on the whole LETTER XII. PAGE 7. "The account of the flood is very embarrassing." Possibly it may-There was a great deal done in a little time; and neither these gentlemen nor myself were present to see how it was done. Ibid. "From whence came the water?" From the place to which it returned, and in which it has remained (God be praised!) ever since. The globe of the earth, as the Scriptures inform us, is a shell, or hollow sphere, enclosing within it a body of waters, styled "the great deep," or abyss. The earth, at the creation, was covered on all sides with water, which, at the command of God, retired to this abyss beneath, from whence, at the same command, it came forth in the days of Noah; and having performed its task, was again dismissed, as before. "The fountains of the great deep," by the divine power, were "broken up ;" gravity for a time was suspended, or overcome; the waters were violently thrown upwards into the atmosphere, and descended in torrents and cataracts of rain. If we measure the circumference of the earth, and guage its contents, we shall find water enough, I dare say, to answer every purpose mentioned in the book of Genesis." The shells, and other marine bodies, deposited in the bowels and on the tops of the highest mountains, all the world over, afford sufficient evidence, "Some are puzzled to find water enough to form an universal deluge: to assist their endeavors it may be remarked, that was it all precipitated which is dissolved in the air, it might probably be sufficient of above thirty feet." WATSON's Chemical Essays, to cover the surface of the whole earth to the depth vol. iii. p. 87. upon the waters. But there was something pleasant in the notion of the whole animal world being shut up in a chest; and the temptation was not to be resisted. "Which had but one window (which window was kept shut for more than five months,) without being stifled for want of air." that the waters have been there. If any one can give a better account than Moses has done, when and how they came there, e'en let us have it. A learned and respectable person expresses his surprise, that the shell fish should transport themselves from the bed of the ocean, where they were much better accommodated, to so uncomfortable a situation as the summit of a barren mountáin. Alas, worthy sir, it was no party of pleasure! Whenever they took the jour-port the life of the creatures enclosed in the ney, depend upon it, it was-" upon compulsion, Hal!" All this, the infidels say, seems strange." It does so; but it is not more strange than true. That air would be necessary to sup ark, was as well known to him who enjoined it to be built, as it can be to them. Our conclusion therefore is, that either a proper supply of it was conveyed in some manner from Page 8. "Neither can we easily persuade infidels, that the windows of heaven were opened, while they know it has no win-without, or else the air within, by means nadows." They can know nothing of the matter, till they know the meaning of the phrase, and usage in the Scriptures, where the heavens are said to be opened when it rains, and shut when rain is withholden, and the like. What is more common than such modes of expression are in all languages? Suppose, to describe an uncommon fall of rain, I should say, "The sluices of heaven were opened;" would it not be the height of absurdity to reply, that the sluices of heaven cannot be opened, because it has no sluices? Every body knows the expression to be metaphorical. But the truth is, that the original word* does not signify windows, according to the modern idea, but rather clefts, fissures, passages: these were opened, the clouds were rent, as we say. The waters rising from beneath met the rains descending from above, and, uniting their forces, they deluged the world. Page 7. "It (the flood) ceased not by annihilation of the waters, but they were evaporated by a wind.” There was no occasion for annihilating the waters. They returned to the place from whence they came. And as to the wind which God caused to pass over the earth, it was not intended merely to evaporate, but, like that which moved upon the chaos at the creation, to separate the waters from the earth, and carry them down to their former habitation. We have no adequate idea, perhaps, of this element the air, and of what mighty things it can effect, when employed in full force by its Creator. Page 8. "It seems strange, that so vast an assemblage of animals could be enclosed in an ark, or chest." But why, chest? The Hebrew word is used only for this ark of Noah, and that in which the child Moses was committed to the Nile; both hollow vessels, constructed to float ארבות * tural or preternatural, was preserved in a state fit for respiration. There might be various contrivances in and about the ark, which are not mentioned in so concise a history. The general facts, of which it concerned us to be informed, are these two; that the world was destroyed by a flood; and that one family, with a number of animals sufficient to replenish the earth, was preserved in a vessel constructed for that purpose. It is asked farther, how the small family in the ark could give due attendance to the wants of so many creatures; and how the carnivorous animals were supplied with food proper for them. Many more questions of a like kind might easily be asked, if one were to set one's wits to work upon the subject. But it should be considered, that the author who relates this transaction, relates it to have been carried on under the immediate direction and inspection of God. By divine power the creatures were brought to Noah, and the fierce dispositions of the wild kind overruled and mollified, that they might live quietly and peaceably with one another, and with those of the tame sort, for the time appointed. Otherwise, instead of asking how they were taken care of and fed in the ark, it should first have been asked how they came into it, or stayed a single moment in it, before the flood began. When "the wolf thus dwelt with the lamb. the lion might eat hay like the ox We should not recur to miracles upon every oc-, casion; but if the event under consideration took place at all, it must, from the very nature of it, have been miraculous, and out of the common course, as it is said to have been. Some means of preserving the fish might therefore be provided by their Maker, notwithstanding the dilemma to which the learned and respectable writer above mentioned hath reduced us: "The water at the deluge,” says he, was either fresh, or salt: now the sea-fish could not have lived in the former, دو nor the river-fish in the latter." Close and more, as this faithful witness in heaven." clever! Page. 9. It is argued in the eighth section, that according to the laws of reflection and refraction, established in the system of nature, the phenomenon of the rainbow must have been produced, as at present, in certain circumstances, from the beginning of the world; and therefore could not have been first set in the cloud, as a token of God's covenant with man, after the flood. But do the words necessarily imply, that the rain-bow had never appeared before? Rather, perhaps, the contrary. The following paraphrase of the passage is submitted, as a just and natural one: "When, in the common course of things, I bring a cloud over the earth, under certain circumstances, I do set my bow in it. That bow shall be from henceforth a token of the covenant I now make with you to drown the earth no more by a flood. Look upon it, and remember this covenant. As certainly as the bow is formed, by the operation of physical causes, in the cloud, and as long as it continues to be thus formed, so certainly and so long shall my covenant endure, standing fast for ever Jacob, we are told,* " took a stone, and set it up for a pillar, and said, This pillar be witness." God, in like manner (if we may so express it,) " took the rainbow, and said, This bow be witness." Neither the stone nor the rainbow were new created for the purpose. When the Jews behold the rainbow, they bless God, who remembers his covenant, and is faithful to his promise. And the tradition of this its designation to proclaim comfort to mankind was strong among the heathen; for according to the mythology of the Greeks, the rainbow was the daughter of Wonder, "a sign to mortal men," and regarded, upon its appearance, as the messenger of the celestial deities. Can we any where find a more striking instance of the sublime, that in the following short description of it? "Look upon the rainbow, and praise him who made it: very beautiful it is in the brightness thereof: it compasseth the heaven about with a glorious circle; and the hands of the Most High have bended it!” LETTER XIII. PAGE 10. "What answer shall we give to therefore they are not to be judged of withthose who are inclined to deny, that an all-out great caution and circumspection. These, powerful and just God could make use of the most unjustifiable means to attain his great purpose of aggrandizing the posterity of Abraham ?" The answer, without doubt, must be, either that the means in question (all circumstances duly known and considered) were not unjustifiable; or, that they were used by man, and only permitted by God. For men often nake use of means to attain their own purposes, by which they unwittingly become the instruments of carrying into execution the counsels of God; yet are they not hereby justified in the use of such means. All the actions of holy men of old, related in Scripture, are not to be deemed blameless, because related in Scripture, or because related of them; though there may often have been circumstances, imperfectly known at this distance of time, which rendered them less blameable than they now appear to be; and perhaps, are in no instances more necessary, for that reason, to be observed, than in reviewing those parts of sacred story, which relate to the birthright and blessing of the ancient partriarchs. Ibid. "Could this benevolent and just Being approve of the ungenerous advantage which Jacob took over his faint and hungry brother?" That the crime of Esau, in being so ready to part with his birthright, was of a more atrocious nature than at first sight it may seem to have been, is evident from the remark subjoined in the narrative, "thus Esau despised his birthright;" as also from his being stigmatized by St. Paul with an epithet denoting profaneness and impiety, qualities which were therefore manifested in the act of lightly and wantonly parting with the birthright, and those high and heavenly privileges annexed to it-I say, lightly and wantonly; because, though he returned faint and hungry from the field, there could be no danger of his starving in his father's house. He parted with it, as men often do now, for the sake of gratifying a liquorish appetite towards that which was his brother's, "for one morsel of meat," one particular dish, which he vehemently affected. There was no reason why a privilege thus rejected should be again conferred. Like the Jews, in an instance somewhat similar, he "judged himself unworthy." He cast it from him, and it became another's. With regard to the part borne by Jabob, in buying what Esau was thus ready to sell, there seems no necessity for pronouncing him faultless. The fact is related, like many others, without approbation or censure; and the designs of God were accomplished by the free agency of man. To his own master he standeth or falleth, respecting this and every other action of his life. Ibid. "Could this omnipotent and upright Spirit adopt no method of distinguishing his favorite Jacob, but that of fraud and lies, by which he deprived the same unsuspecting brother of his father's blessing?" The following considerations may assist in directing us to form a right judgment of this matter. 1st. The proposition of deceiving Isaac originated not with Jacob, but with Rebeccah. Jacob remonstrated against it, as likely to bring a curse upon him, rather than a blessing; nor would consent to perform his part, till she engaged to take all the blame on herself" on me be thy curse, my son; only obey my voice." 2dly. From this speech, and from the earnestness and solicitude discovered by Rebeccah, it may not unfairly be presumed, that she had some special reason for what she did; that Isaac was about to take a wrong step in a concern of great moment, which ought to be prevented, and could be prevented by no other means. that Esau himself acquiesced at length in the propriety of what had been done. 4thly. If such were the case, Isaac was only deceived into what was right, and what himself acknowledged to be so in the conclusion. The deception was like those often practised by physicians for the benefit of their patients; and casuists must decide upon it in the same manner. The offence of Jacob is certainly alleviated, if not entirely taken off, by the circumstance of Rebeccah pledging herself to bear the blame; as the conduct of Rebeccah seems justified by that of Isaac ratifying and confirming to Jacob the blessing originally intended for Esau. Upon the whole, if there were an offence, it was one that might be forgiven; and if God, notwithstanding, continued to bless Jacob, he did forgive it, and had reasons for so doing. Ibid. "In short, how shall we justify God for the continual distinction he is said to have bestowed on a people, who from their own annals appear to have been unparalleled for cruelty, ingratitude, inurbanity, &c.?" The article of cruelty, for proof of which we are referred, in a note, to the acts of Joshua, may be deferred till we come professedly to consider those acts. Their ingratitude towards God their Saviour was indeed flagrant; but perhaps might be matched elsewhere. As to the charge of inurbanity, it was brought against them by Voltaire, who spake of them as a "wretched nation, ever ignorant, and vulgar, and strangers to the arts." The following reply was made to him. When the infidels shall have duly considered it, we shall hope to be favored with their sentiments upon it. "Does it become you, a writer of the eighteenth century, to charge the ancient Hebrews with ignorance?a people who, while your barbarous ancestors, whilst even the Greeks and Latins, wandering in the woods, could scarcely procure for themselves clothing and a settled subsistence, already 3dly. The rectitude of Rebeccah's judg-possessed all arts of necessity, and some of ment seems evidently to have been recogniz- mere pleasure; who not only knew how to ed and allowed by Isaac, at the conclusion of feed and rear cattle, till the earth, work up the matter. For though he had blessed Jacob, intending to bless Esau, yet, as if recollecting himself, he confirmed and ratified that blessing in the strongest terms: "Yea, and he shall be blessed." Still farther-at sending him away, he again repeated the benediction, in the most solemn and affecting manner; "God give thee the blessing of Abraham!" It is hard to assign any other reason, why, if so disposed, upon discovering the fraud, he might not have reversed the proceedings. Nay, by the kind meeting of the brothers afterwards, one should be inclined to suppose, wood, stone, and metals, weave clothes, dye wool, embroider stuffs, polish and engrave on precious stones, but who, even then, adding to manual arts those of taste and refinement, surveyed land, appointed their festivals according to the motions of the heavenly bodies, and ennobled their solemnities by the pomp of ceremonies, by the sound of instruments, music, and dancing; who even then committed to writing the history of the origin of the world, that of their own nation, and their ancestors; who had poets and writers skilled in all the sciences then known, great and brave commanders, a pure worship, just laws, a wise form of government; in short, the only one of all ancient nations, that has left us authentic monuments of genius and of literature. Can this nation be justly charged with ignorance and inurbanity? LETTER XIV. Let us PAGE. 11. "Unbelievers affirm, that a just rejecting their Messiah; or does he-can God could not punish Pharaoh for a hardness he intend to say that he was so? of heart of which he himself (God) was evidently the cause." hear no more of this, for the sake of common sense and common honesty, if such things are yet left among us. When we meet with an assertion apparently contrary to all the truth and equity in the But it is asserted that, when the objection world, it is but common justice to any writer, is urged by unbelievers, "we (Christians) human or divine, to suppose, that we mistake | usually answer, that the potter has power his meaning, and that the expression employ- over the clay, to fashion it as he lists;" to ployed to convey it is capable of an interpre- which the infidels in the gaiety of their hearts tation different from that which may at first triumphantly reply, that, "if the clay in the present itself. We cannot, for a moment, hands of the potter were capable of happiimagine, that God secretly influences a man's ness and misery, according to the fashion imwill, or suggests any wicked stubborn resolu- pressed on it, the potter must be malevolent tion to his mind, and then punishes him for and cruel, who can give the preference to it. We are therefore to consider, by what inflicting pain instead of happiness." other means, not incompatible with his nature and attributes, he may be said, in a certain sense, and without impropriety, to harden a man's heart. There are many ways by which we may conceive this effect to be wrought, without running into the absurdity and impiety abovementioned. The heart may be hardened by those very respites, miracles, and mercies, intended to soften it; for if they do not soften it, they will harden it-God is sometimes said to do that which he permits to be done by others, in the way of judgment and punishment; as when his people rejected his own righteous laws, he is said to have "given them" the idolatrous ones of their heathen neighbors, "statutes that were not good." The heart may be hardened by his withdrawing that grace it has long resisted; men may be given up to a reprobate mind; as they would not see when they possessed the faculty of sight, the use of that faculty may be taken from them, and they may be abandoned to blindness. But all this is judicial, and supposes previous voluntary wickedness, which it is designed to punish. The case of Pharaoh is exactly that of the Jews. God is said to have "blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts." But how? As it is here represented? Would he do this to his own people? Was HE the cause of their The similitude of the potter is employed by St. Paul: but it does not stand exactly in his writings, as it does in the pamphlet before us. By him it is adduced in proof of one single point only, that, when men are become sinners, and obstinate sinners, God has a right of dealing with them according to his pleasure, and as may best answer the purposes of his dispensations, respecting others, as well as themselves. The comparison is first used by God himself (Jer. xviii.,) and applied to the power by him exercised of destroying or preserving an offending people, as they should either continue in sin, or repent and amend. It is applied precisely in the same manner by St. Paul (Rom. ix.,) to show (as appears by the verses immediately following) that God might, without injustice deal with the Jews as he had before dealt with a hardened Pharaoh; and for the same reason, because they had refused to hearken to his voice, as Pharaoh had done. He might reserve them for a more signal destruction, which would display his glory, and forward the conversion of the nations; while, at the same time, he showed the riches of his mercy to such, whether Jews or Gentiles, as embraced the Gospel; whom he owned as the spiritual seed of Abraham, and his peculiar people. Whoever will condescend with candor and attention to peruse Dr. Whitby's |