SECOND DIVISION: PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION.
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.
1. The province of _Particular Introduction_ is to consider the books of the Bible separately, in respect to their authorship, date, contents, and the place which each of them holds in the system of divine truth.
Here it is above all things important that we begin with the idea of the _unity of divine revelation_--that all the parts of the Bible constitute a gloriously perfect whole, of which God and not man is the author. No amount of study devoted to a given book or section of the Old Testament, with all the help that modern scholarship can furnish, will give a true comprehension of it, until we understand it in its relations to the rest of Scripture, We cannot, for example, understand the book of Genesis out of connection with the four books that follow, nor the book of Deuteronomy separated from the four that precede. Nor can we fully understand the Pentateuch as a whole except in the light of the historical and prophetical books which follow; for these unfold the divine purpose in the establishment of the Theocracy as recorded in the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch itself gives us only the _constitution_ of the Theocracy. The books that follow, taken in connection with, the New Testament, reveal its _office_ in the plan of redemption; and not till we know this can we be said to have an intelligent comprehension of the theocratic system. The same is true of every other part of revelation.
The words of the apostle: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7), apply to many learned commentaries. Their authors have brought to them much accurate scholarship and research; but they have not seen the unity of divine truth. They have written mainly in an antiquarian spirit and interest, regarding the work under consideration simply as an ancient and venerable record. They have diligently sought for connections in philology, in antiquities, and in history. In these respects they have thrown much light on the sacred text. But they have never once thought of inquiring what place the book which they have undertaken to interpret holds in the divine system of revelation--perhaps have had no faith in such a system. Consequently they cannot unfold to others that which they do not themselves apprehend. On a hundred particulars they may give valuable information, but that which constitutes the very life and substance of the book remains hidden from their view.
2. It is necessary that we understand, first of all, the relation of the Old Testament as a whole to the system of revealed truth. It is a _preparatory_ revelation introductory to one that is _final_. This the New Testament teaches in explicit terms. "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son." Gal. 4:4. Christ could not have come in the days of Enoch before the flood, nor of Abraham after the flood, because "the fulness of the time" had not yet arrived. Nor was the way for his advent prepared in the age of Moses, or David, or Isaiah, or Ezra. The gospel everywhere assumes that when the Saviour appeared, men had attained to a state of comparative maturity in respect to both the knowledge of God and the progress of human society. The attentive reader of the New Testament cannot fail to notice how fully its writers avail themselves of all the revelations which God had made in the Old Testament of himself, of the course of his providence, and of his purposes towards the human family. The _unity of God_, especially, is assumed as a truth so firmly established in the national faith of the Jews, that the doctrine of our Lord's deity, and that of the Holy Spirit, can be taught without the danger of its being misunderstood in a polytheistic sense--as if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were three gods. It is certain that this could not have been done any time before the Babylonish captivity. The idea of _vicarious sacrifice_, moreover--that great fundamental idea of the gospel that "without shedding of blood there is no remission"--the writers of the New Testament found ready at hand, and in its light they interpreted the mission of Christ. Upon his very first appearance, John the Baptist, his forerunner, exclaimed to the assembled multitudes: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." To the Jew, with his training under the Mosaic system of sacrifices, how significant were these words! Without such a previous training, how meaningless to him and to the world for which Christ died! Then again the gospel, in strong contrast with the Mosaic law, deals in _general principles_. Herein it assumes a comparative maturity of human thought--a capacity to include many particulars under one general idea. A beautiful illustration of this is our Lord's summary of social duties; "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matt. 7:12. We may add (what is indeed implied in the preceding remark) that the gospel required for its introduction a _well-developed state of civilization_ and culture, as contrasted with one of rude barbarism. Now the Hebrews were introduced, in the beginning of their national existence, to the civilization of Egypt; which, with all its defects, was perhaps as good a type as then existed in the world. Afterwards they were brought successively into intimate connection with Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman civilization; particularly with the last two. This was, moreover, at a time when their national training under the Mosaic institutions had given them such maturity of religious character that they were not in danger of being seduced into the idolatrous worship of these nations.
Dispersed throughout all the provinces of the Roman empire, they still maintained firmly the religion of their fathers; and their synagogues everywhere constituted central points for the introduction of the gospel, and its diffusion through the Gentile world. Such are some of the many ways in which the world was prepared for the Redeemer's advent.
This is a vast theme, on which volumes could be written. The plan of the present work will only admit of the above brief hints.
Our Lord's command is: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." The history of missions shows that the gospel can be preached with success to the most degraded tribes--to the Hottentots of South Africa and the cannibals of the South sea islands, and that this is the only remedy for their barbarism. But the gospel did not _begin_ among savages, nor does it have its centres of power and influence among them.
Christ came at the culminating point of ancient civilization and culture; not that he might conform his gospel to existing institutions and ideas, but that he might through his gospel infuse into them (as far as they contained elements of truth) the purifying and transforming leaven of divine truth. As the gospel began in the midst of civilization, so does its introduction among barbarous tribes always bring civilization in its train.
3. When we have learned to regard the revelation of which we have a record in the Old Testament as preparatory to the gospel, we see it in its true light. This view furnishes both the key to its character and the answer to the objections commonly urged against it. It is not a revelation of abstract truths. These would neither have excited the interest of the people, nor have been apprehended by them. God made known to the covenant people his character and the duties which he required of them by a series of _mighty acts_ and a system of _positive laws_. The Old Testament, is, therefore, in an eminent degree _documentary_--a record not simply of opinions, but rather of actions and institutions. Of these actions and institutions we are to judge from the character of the people and the age in connection with the great end proposed by God. This end was not the material prosperity of Israel, but the preparation of the nation for its high office as the medium through which the gospel should afterwards be given to the world. The people were rebellious and stiff-necked, and surrounded by polytheism and idolatry. Their training required severity, and all the severity employed by God brought forth at last its appropriate fruits. The laws imposed upon them were stern and burdensome from their multiplicity. But no one can show that in either of these respects they could have been wisely modified; for the nation was then in its childhood and pupilage (Gal. 4:1-3), and needed to be treated accordingly.
An objection much insisted on by some is the _exclusive_ character of the Mosaic institutions--a religion, it is alleged, for only one nation, while all the other nations were left in ignorance. To this a summary answer can be given. In selecting Israel as his covenant people, God had in view the salvation of the whole world: "In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3)--such was the tenor of the covenant from the beginning. His plan was to bring one nation into special relation to himself, establish in it the true religion, prepare it for the advent of Christ, and then propagate the gospel from it as a centre throughout all nations. If men are to be dealt with in a moral way, as free, responsible subjects of law (and this is the only way in which God deals with men under a system of either natural or revealed religion), can the objector propose any better way? He might as well object to the procedure of a military commander that, instead of spreading his army over a whole province, he concentrates it on one strong point. Let him wait patiently, and he will find that in gaining this point the commander gains the whole country.
4. Having seen the relation of the Old Testament as a whole to the system of divine revelation, we are now prepared to consider the place occupied by its _several divisions_.
(1.) To prepare the way for our Lord's advent, one nation was to be selected and trained up under a system of divine laws and ordinances--the _theocracy_ established under Moses. The _Pentateuch_ records _the establishment of the theocracy_, with the previous steps that led to it, and the historical events immediately connected with.
it. Hence the five books of Moses are called emphatically _the Law_; and as such, their province in the Old Testament is clear and well defined.
(2.) The end of the Mosaic law being the preparation of the Israelitish people, and through them the world, for Christ's advent, it was not the purpose of God that it should be hidden as a dead letter beside the ark in the inner sanctuary. It was a code for practice, not for theory. It contained the constitution of the state, civil as well as religious; and God's almighty power and faithfulness were pledged that it should accomplish in a thorough way the office assigned to it. The theocracy must therefore have a _history_; and with the record of this the _historical books_ are occupied.
(3.) God did not leave the development of this history to itself. He watched over it from the beginning, and directed its course, interposing from time to time, not only in a providential way, but also by direct revelation. Sometimes, for specific ends, he revealed himself immediately _to_ particular individuals, as to Gideon, and Manoah and his wife. But more commonly his revelations were made to the rulers or people at large _through_ persons selected as the organs of his Spirit; that is, through _prophets_. The prophet held his commission immediately from God. Since God is the author, not of confusion, but of order, he came to the people _under_ the Law, not above it; and his messages were to be tried by the Law. Deut. 13:1-5. No prophet after Moses enjoyed the same fulness of access to God which was vouchsafed to him, or received the same extent of revelation. Numb. 12:6-8; Deut. 34:10-12.
Nevertheless, the prophet came to rulers and people, like Moses, with an authority derived immediately from God, introducing his messages with the words: "Thus saith the Lord." In God's name he rebuked the people for their sins; explained to them the true cause of the calamities that befell them; recalled them to God's service as ordained in the Law, unfolding to them at the same time its true nature as consisting in the spirit, and not in the letter only--1 Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:11-20; 57:15; 66:2; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 18:31; Hosea 10:12; 14:2; Joel 2:12, 13; Amos 5: 21-24; Micah 6: 6-8--denounced upon them the awful judgments of God as the punishment of continued disobedience; and promised them the restoration of his favor upon condition of hearty repentance. In the decline of the Theocracy, it was the special province of the prophets to comfort the pious remnant of God's people by unfolding to them the future glory of Zion--the true "Israel of God," and her dominion over all the earth. From about the reign of Uzziah and onward, as already remarked (ch. 15. 12), the prophets began, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to reduce their prophecies to writing, and thus arose the series of _prophetical books_ that form a prominent part of the Old Testament canon. Their office is at once recognized by every reader as distinct from that of either the Pentateuch or the historical books; although these latter were, as a general rule, written by prophets also.
(4.) There is a class, more miscellaneous in character, that may be described in general terms as the _poetical books_, in which the elements of meditation and reflection predominate. It includes the book of Job, which has for its theme divine providence, as viewed from the position of the Old Testament; the book of Psalms, that wonderful treasury of holy thought and feeling embodied in sacred song for the use of God's people in all ages; the book of Proverbs, with its inexhaustible treasures of practical wisdom; the book of Ecclesiastes, having for its theme the vanity of this world when sought as a satisfying good; and the book of Canticles, which the church has always regarded as a mystical song having for its ground-idea, under the Old Testament, that God is the husband of Zion, and under the New, that the church is the bride of Christ. How high a place this division of the canon holds in the system of divine revelation every pious heart feels instinctively. Without it, the revelation of the Old Testament could not have been complete for the work assigned to it.
5. We have seen the relation of the Old Testament as a whole to the entire system of revelation, and also the place occupied by its several divisions. It will further appear, as we proceed, that each particular book in these divisions contributes its share to the perfection of the whole.
6. Although the revelation contained in the Old Testament was preparatory to the fuller revelation of the New, we must guard against the error of supposing that it had not a proper significance and use for the men of its own time. "Unto us," says the apostle, "was the gospel preached, _as well as unto them_." Heb. 4:2. And again: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better tiling for us, _that they without us should not be made perfect_." Heb. 11:13, 39, 40. They had a part of the truth, but not its fulness; and the measure of revelation vouchsafed to them was given for their personal salvation, as well as to prepare the way for further revelations. The promise made to Abraham--"In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"--was fulfilled in Christ. In this respect Abraham "received not the promise." Nevertheless, it was a promise made for his benefit, as well as for that of future ages. Into the bosom of the patriarch it brought light and joy and salvation. "Your father Abraham," said Jesus, "rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad." John 8:56. "He believed in the Lord," says the inspired record, "and he counted it to him for righteousness." Gen. 15:6. The deliverance of Israel from Egypt typified the redemption of Christ; and it was, moreover, one of the grand movements that prepared the way for his advent. But it was neither all type nor all preparation. To the covenant people of that day it was a true deliverance; and to the believing portion of them, a deliverance of soul as well as of body.
"The law," says Paul, "was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Gal. 3:24. But while it had this preparatory office, it was to the Israelitish nation a true rule of life; and under it many, through faith, anticipated its end. The prophets prophesied for the men of their own age, as well as for distant generations. The sweet psalmist of Israel, while he foreshadowed the Messiah's reign, sung for the comfort and edification of himself and his contemporaries; and Solomon gave rules of practical wisdom as valid for his day as for ours. The revelation of the Old Testament was not complete, like that which we now possess; but it was sufficient for the salvation of every sincere inquirer after truth. When the rich man in hell besought Abraham that Lazarus might be sent to warn his five brethren on the ground that, if one went to them from the dead they would repent, Abraham answered: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."
7. There is another practical error against which Christians of the present day need to be warned. It is the idea that the full revelation of the New Testament supersedes in a great measure the necessity of studying the previous revelation contained in the Old Testament. Few will openly avow this, but too many inwardly cherish the delusion in a vague and undefined form; and it exerts a pernicious influence upon them, leading them to undervalue and neglect the Old Testament Scriptures. Even if the idea under consideration were in accordance with truth, it would still be to every earnest Christian a matter of deep historical interest to study the way by which God prepared the world for the full light of the gospel. But it is not true. It rests on a foundation of error and delusion. For, (1.) The system of divine revelation constitutes a _whole_, all the parts of which are connected, from beginning to end, so that no single part can be truly understood without a knowledge of all the rest. The impenetrable darkness that rests on some portions of Scripture has its ground in the fact that the plan of redemption is not yet completed. The mighty disclosures of the future can alone dissipate this darkness.
"God is his own interpreter, And he will make it plain."
(2.) We know that the writers of the New Testament constantly refer to the Old for arguments and illustrations. A knowledge of the Old Testament is necessary, therefore, for a full comprehension of their meaning. How can the reader, for example, understand the epistles to the Romans and Galatians, or that to the Hebrews, without a thorough acquaintance with "Moses and the prophets," to which these epistles have such constant reference? (3.) The Old Testament is occupied with the record of God's dealings with men. Such a record must be a perpetual revelation of God's infinite attributes, and of human character also, and the course of human society, every part of which is luminous with instruction. (4.) Although the old theocracy, with its particular laws and forms of worship, has passed away, yet the _principles_ on which it rested, which interpenetrated it in every part, and which shone forth with a clear light throughout its whole history--these principles are eternal verities, as valid for us as for the ancient patriarchs. Some of these principles--for example, God's unity, personality, and infinite perfections; his universal providence; his supremacy over all nations; the tendency of nations to degeneracy, and the stern judgments employed by God to reclaim them--are so fully unfolded in the Old Testament that they needed no repetition in the New. There they became _axioms_ rather than doctrines. (5.) "The manifold wisdom of God" in adapting his dealings with men to the different stages of human progress cannot be seen without a diligent study of the Old Testament as well as the New.
Whoever neglects the former, will want breadth and comprehensiveness of Christian culture. All profound Christian writers have been well versed in "the whole instrument of each Testament," as Tertullian calls the two parts of revelation. Chap. 13, No. 2.
Modern skepticism begins with disparaging the Old Testament, and ends with denying the divine authority of both the Old and the New. In this work it often unites a vast amount of learning in regard to particulars with principles that are superficial and false.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE PENTATEUCH.
1. The _unity of the Pentateuch_ has already been considered (Ch. 9, No.
12), and will appear more fully as we proceed with the examination of the separate books included in it. Even if we leave out of view the authority of the New Testament, this unity is too deep and fundamental to allow of the idea that it is a patchwork of later ages. Under divine guidance the writer goes steadily forward from beginning to end, and his work when finished is a symmetrical whole. Even its apparent incongruities, like the interweaving of historical notices with the laws, are marks of its genuineness; for they prove that, in those parts at least, events were recorded as they transpired. Such a blending of history with revelation does not impair the unity of the work; for it is a unity which has its ground not in severe logical arrangement and classification, but in a divine plan historically developed. Whether the division of the Pentateuch into five books (whence its Greek name _Pentateuchos_, _fivefold book_) was original, proceeding from the author himself, or the work of a later age, is a question on which biblical scholars are not agreed. It is admitted by all that the division is natural and appropriate. The Hebrew titles of the several books are taken from prominent words standing at or near the beginning of each. The Greek names are expressive of their prominent contents; and these are followed in the Latin Vulgate and in our English version, only that the name of the fourth book is translated.
I. GENESIS.
2. The Hebrews _name_ this book _Bereshith_, _in the beginning_, from the first word. Its Greek name _Genesis_ signifies _generation_, _genealogy_. As the genealogical records with which the book abounds contain historical notices, and are, in truth, the earliest form of history, the word is applied to the history of the creation, and of the ancient patriarchs, as well as to the genealogical lists of their families. Gen. 2:4; 25:19; 37:2 etc. In the same wide sense is it applied to the book itself.
3. Genesis is the _introductory book_ to the Pentateuch, without which our understanding of the following books would be incomplete. Let us suppose for a moment that we had not this book. We open the book of Exodus and read of "the children of Israel which came into Egypt;" that "Joseph was in Egypt already," and that "there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph." Who were these children of Israel? we at once ask; and how did they come to be in Egypt? Who was Joseph? and what is the meaning of the notice that the new king knew not Joseph? All these particulars are explained in the book of Genesis, and without them we must remain in darkness. But the connection of this book with the following is not simply explanatory; it is _organic_ also, entering into the very substance of the Pentateuch. We are told (Ex. 2:24, 25) that God heard the groaning of his people in Egypt, and "God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob; and God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them." The remembrance of his covenant with their fathers is specified as the ground of his interposition. Now the covenant made with Abraham, and afterwards renewed to Isaac and Jacob, was not a mere incidental event in the history of the patriarchs and their posterity. It constituted the very essence of God's peculiar relation to Israel; and, as such, it was the platform on which the whole theocracy was afterwards erected. The nation received the law at Sinai _in pursuance_ of the original covenant made with their fathers; and unless we understand the nature of this covenant, we fail to understand the meaning and end of the law itself.
The very information which we need is contained in Genesis; for from the twelfth chapter onward this book is occupied with an account of this covenant, and of God's dealings with the patriarchs in connection with it. The story of Joseph, which unites such perfect simplicity with such deep pathos, is not thrown in as a pleasing episode. Its end is to show how God accomplished his purpose, long before announced to Abraham (ch.
15:13), that the Israelites should be "a stranger in a land not theirs."
But the Abrahamic covenant itself finds its explanation in the previous history. For two thousand years God had administered the government of the world without a visible church. And what was the result? Before the flood the degeneracy of the human family was universal. God, therefore, swept them all away, and began anew with Noah and his family. But the terrible judgment of the deluge was not efficacious to prevent the new world from following the example of the old. In the days of Abraham the worship of God had been corrupted through polytheism and idolatry, and ignorance and wickedness were again universal. The time had manifestly come for the adoption of a new economy, in which God should, for the time being, concentrate his special labors upon a single nation but with ultimate reference to the salvation of the whole world. Thus we have in the book of Genesis in a certain measure (for we may not presume to speak of God's counsels as fully apprehended by us) an explanation of the Abrahamic covenant, and, in this, of the Mosaic economy also.
4. In accordance with the above view, the book of Genesis falls into two unequal, but natural divisions. The _first_ part extends through eleven chapters, and is occupied with the history of _the human family as a whole_. It is the oldest record in existence, and its contents are perfectly unique. It describes in brief terms: the order of creation; the institution of the Sabbath and marriage; the probation to which man was subjected, with its disastrous result in his fall and expulsion from Eden; the murder of Abel by Cain, and, in connection with this, the division of mankind into two families; man's universal degeneracy; the deluge; the covenant made by God with the earth through Noah, and the law of murder; the confusion of tongues at Babel, and the consequent dispersion of the different families of men, a particular account of which is given by way of anticipation in the tenth chapter. In addition to these notices there are two genealogical tables; the first from Adam to Noah (ch. 5), the second from Shem to Abraham (ch. 11).
The _second_ part comprises the remainder of the book. In this we have no longer a history of the whole race, but of Abraham's family, with only incidental notices of the nations into connection with whom Abraham and his posterity were brought. It opens with an account of the call of Abraham and the covenant made with him; notices the repeated renewal of this covenant to Abraham, with the institution of the rite of circumcision; its subsequent renewal to Isaac and Jacob; and the exclusion, first of Ishmael and afterwards of Esau, from a share in its privileges. In immediate connection with the covenant relation into which God took Abraham and his family, we have the history of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, sometimes with much detail, but always with reference to the peculiar prerogative conferred upon them.
The book closes with an account of the wonderful train of providences by which Israel was brought into Egypt.
Though Ishmael and Esau were excluded from the covenant, yet, apparently in consequence of their near relation to the patriarchs, genealogical tables are devoted to them; to Ishmael, ch. 25:12-18; to Esau, the whole of ch. 36.
5. The _Mosaic authorship_ of Genesis has already been considered; and, in connection with this, the question whether the Pentateuch, and especially Genesis, contains any clauses of a later date, Ch. 9, No. 11.
Some, as Hengstenberg and his followers, deny the existence of such clauses; but others think that a few must be admitted, which were afterwards added, as needful explanations, by prophetical men. We are at liberty to decide either way concerning them according to the evidence before us. On the question whether Moses made use of earlier written documents, see Ch. 9, No. 11.
The clauses for which a later date can with any show of reason be claimed are few in number, and none of them enter essentially into the texture of the book. They are just such extraneous remarks as the necessities of a later age required; for example, Gen. 36:31; Ex. 16:35. On the last of these, Graves, who considers it "_plainly a passage inserted by a later hand_,"
says: "I contend that the insertion of such notes rather confirms than impeaches the integrity of the original narrative.
If this were a compilation long subsequent to the events it records" (according to the false assumption of some respecting the origin of the Pentateuch), "such additions would not have been plainly distinguishable, as they now are, from the main substance of the original." On the Pentateuch, Appendix, sec. 1, No. 13.
6. The contents of the first part of this book are peculiar. It is not strange, therefore, that we should encounter _difficulties_ in the attempt to interpret them. To consider these difficulties in detail would be to write a commentary on the first eleven chapters. Only some general remarks can here be offered. Some difficulties are imaginary, the inventions of special pleading. In these the commentaries of modern rationalists abound. They are to be set aside by fair interpretation.
But other difficulties are real, and should not be denied or ignored by the honest expositor. If he can give a valid explanation of them, well and good; but if not, let him reverently wait for more light, in the calm assurance that the divine authority of the Pentateuch rests on a foundation that cannot be shaken. To deny a well-authenticated narrative of facts on the ground of unexplained difficulties connected with it is to build on a foundation of error.
(A.) Of the difficulties connected with the first part of Genesis some are _scientific_. Such is the narrative of the creation of the world in six days. Respecting this it has already been remarked (Ch. 10, No. 3) that with all who believe in the reality of divine revelation the question is not respecting the truth of this narrative, but respecting the interpretation of it. As long ago as the time of Augustine the question was raised whether these days are to be understood literally, or symbolically of long periods of time. The latter was his view, and it is strengthened by the analogy of the prophetic days of prophecy.
Another difficulty relates to the age of the antediluvian patriarchs, which was about tenfold the present term of life for robust and healthful men. According to the laws of physiology we must suppose that the period of childhood and youth was protracted in a corresponding manner; since in man, as in all the higher animals, the time of physical growth--physical growth in the widest sense, the process of arriving at physical maturity--has a fixed relation to the whole term of existence.
After the deluge, in some way not understood by us, the whole course of human life began to be gradually quickened--to run its round in a shorter time--till the age of man was at last reduced to its present measure. All that we can say here is that we do not know how God accomplished this result. He accomplished it in a secret and invisible way, as he does so many other of his operations in nature. On the discrepancy between the Masoretic Hebrew text, the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and that of the Septuagint, in respect to the genealogical tables in Genesis, see below.
The _unity of the human race_ is everywhere assumed in Scripture. Some modern scientific men have denied this, but their arguments for a diversity of origin do not amount to positive proof. They are theoretic rather than demonstrative, and the weight of evidence is against them. We must remember, moreover, that man lives under a supernatural dispensation. The narrative in the eleventh chapter of Genesis seems to imply that God interposed miraculously to confound human speech, in accordance with his plan to scatter men "abroad upon the face of all the earth." In like manner he may have interposed in a secret way to intensify the diversity in the different races of men. It does not appear certain, however, on physiological grounds, that any miraculous interposition was needed; and we may leave the question of the manner in which the present diversity among the children of Adam was produced among the secret things of which it is not necessary that we should have an explanation.
The question of the _universality of the deluge_ is with believers in revelation one of words only, on which it is hardly necessary to waste time. The _end_ of the deluge was the complete destruction of the human race, all but Noah and his family. This it accomplished, and why need we raise any further inquiries; as, for example, whether the polar lands, where no man has ever trod, were submerged also? "All the high hills under the whole heaven" doubtless included all the high hills where man lived, and which, therefore, were known to man.