bear with no rival in his worship, no claimant of his glory. When it is said that He repents, it simply denotes that He alters the course He formerly pursued, and takes another way of making known His intentions and His will. If God had left these expressions on record without any explanation, there might be some pretence for this objection; but, in order to guard against any misconception, we read, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord: for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." And again, He has represented Himself "the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever." The objection, therefore, that God is represented as possessed of human passions is seen to be futile, when we bring Scripture into comparison with Scripture. Another objection is the text, God "hardened the heart of Pharaoh." Infidels say, Is it reasonable or just that God should condemn that man to everlasting destruction whose heart He himself hardens ? Now, we may observe here, that it has been noticed more than two hundred years ago, that the literal rendering of that phrase may justly he-the Lord permitted (or suffered) Pharaoh's heart to be hardened; the same mood of the Hebrew verb which means to cause signifying also to permit. And if it be an objection against revelation being the inspiration of God that he permitted Pharaoh's heart to be hardened, then you will find that there is the same objection against creation being the work of God. Does he not suffer men to be born blind? to come into the world deformed? Does he not suffer injuries and casualties to destroy hundreds? You do not say that this proves creation not to be the work of God. In the same way, if he suffers the passions of men to work their natural evil results, and their hearts to be hardened, it does not prove that the book which records such things is not the word of God. But we do not shrink from the strongest view of this matter. We take the words as they are in our version, "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart;" and say there is nothing in that inconsistent with the

attributes of a wise, and just, and merciful, and gracious God. For all the offers of the Gospel, all the motives, and opportunities, and means that could possibly be presented are presented to the sinner; and if he reject them all, he sins against the clearest light, tramples on the kindest love, and nothing more can be done for him than has been done: then there are remaining just two ways in which that man may be punished. Either he may be cut off, and soul and body be both cast into hell, or his physical life may be spared, while his moral and spiritual life may be extinguished. In either case the punishment is the same. Pharaoh, instead of having his heart hardened, might justly have been cut off at that moment, and cast out from the presence of God; but instead of this, God suffered his physical existence to be protracted, and put an end to his moral and spiritual existence; and therefore, while on earth, he was in effect in that place where mercy never comes. should not have objected if God had cut off his natural life, and given him no more means of repentance; then we ought not to object to God's cutting off his moral and spiritual life after every thing had been done for him that could be done.


A doctrine also objected to is, that God visits the sins of the father upon the children. We find this illustrated in ordinary life. For instance, a nobleman rebels against his prince; he loses his coronet, and his family suffer for centuries afterwards. Å king commits some great crime, and the whole country is thrown into a state of rebellion and war. A father through gambling loses all his property, and his children and his children's children suffer. A parent becomes a debauchee, wastes his health, and injures his constitution; and his offspring are diseased to the third and fourth generation. Now, what is all this but the sins of the fathers visited upon the children, in the arrangements of Providence, in the occurrences of daily life? If, therefore, the record of this fact in the Bible proves the book not to be the inspiration of God, then does the happening of this fact every day before our eyes prove creation and providence not to be the workman

ship of God. And, moreover, when God states that He visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, He does not refer to their after-existence. In Ezekiel, xviii. 19, you read, "Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." This chapter refers to the after-existence of the soul. The Jews construed the statement in Exodus falsely, and understood it to refer to God's arrangements in eternity, as well as to his dealings in time; but here, by the mouth of his prophet, he distinctly shews that "visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children " has reference purely to man's temporal condition, and has no direct bearing whatever on the destinies of his immortal soul.

try bringing in a verdict of guilt the judge pronouncing the senten of death, and that sentence execute you do not complain that there any thing wrong or unjust in the ac Just in the same way these Canaanite are declared to have polluted an stained the land with their corrup tions and abominations; and whe they were cut off by the sword Heaven, it was merely the jury an judge pronouncing the verdict an sentence to the letter. We therefore, to regard the extirpation of the Canaanites not as an act o revenge, but as the execution of the sentence of retributive justice.


Again, it is urged that the com mand given to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac is altogether inconsisten with all right conceptions of the justice and the mercy of God. Now first, this act was intended to be symbolical; it was meant to represent the sacrifice of the Son of God as a propitiation for the sins of the world. And, in the second place, we reply, that God has a sovereign and indisputable claim to the life of His creatures, when, where, and how He pleases; and that if Abraham had actually plunged the knife into Isaac's bosom, it would have been perfectly consistent with the character of God, for He has a right to summon the soul to His presence through any avenue, in any circumstances, and by any instrumentality that to Him may seem meet. In the last place,

Abraham did not kill Isaac.

The next objection we refer to is, that in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy there are passages so indelicate as to be utterly unfit for general perusal; and Paine, and Voltaire, and Hume, have urged this popular but paltry reason for disbelieving the Bible to be the inspiration of God. In reply to this, we observe, in the first place, that we have no fact recorded in the Scripture which does not actually occur in creation and in providence; and if, therefore, the record of that which

Another feature objected to by infidels, as inconsistent with the moral character of God, is God having caused all the Canaanitish nations to be destroyed. They say that it seems wholly inconsistent with what we should suppose to be the merciful character of God, that He should thus destroy whole nations by the sword. But when we read that the pestilence has depopulated crowded cities-when you read that Napoleon swept the continent of Europe, and left but the wrecks of smoking homes and the blood of slaughtered citizens to be the mementos of his march,we do not say that this is a proof that there is no God in heaven, and no moral government of the inhabitants of the earth; and yet if the destruction of the nations of the Canaanites immediately by God is a proof that the Bible which records it

objection, that in courts of justice,

and in professional and medical communications, circumstances transpire which may seem revolting to us, but of which we never complain, because we know they are essential to the good and well-being of mankind; and may not these communications of the great Physician be essential for the moral restoration of the world? In the third place, we reply, that the Scripture is an exact portrait of man; if it shews the bright in his character, it shews also the black; if it proclaims that which ennobles and exalts him, it discloses that which tends to depress and humble him. This book would not be a fair portrait, not merely of man's restoration, but of man's ruin and guilt, if it did not record fully and fairly the sins as well as the virtues of mankind. There may be in the present day a certain delicacy of language, which was totally unknown even two or three centuries ago, and still more unknown in the day when the Bible was written. In ancient times, and especially in Eastern countries, men and women mingled together in society, but kept perfectly distinct and separate, and allusions might occur not in such circumstances indelicate. In a recent work written by an Arab, it is stated as a most revolting circumstance, that in England the ladies walk the streets without being veiled, and openly mingle with men in society and in churches; for this the foreigner charges us with a want of delicacy, just as we lay the charge against a past generation. When we read of that which is immoral or indelicate in a novel, it is recorded too often in such a way as to excite corresponding emotions in the mind of the reader; but when we read the most indelicate records in the Pentateuch, they are recorded in tones of holy and righteous severity; and instead of being calculated to excite one unhallowed emotion, they are calculated to make you abstain from what is foul, and love whatsoever is just, and pure, and of good report. And for all these reasons we say, that those parts of Holy Writ which appear to us indelicate may be vindicated on the strictest principles, and shewn to be neither inconsistent with the moral character of God, nor calculated to contaminate the feelings and affections of mankind.

Another objection is, that polygamy was suffered to exist among the Hebrews and in other Eastern nations; Iwe read of the number of David's wives, and the concubines of Solomon. Can this have been permitted by the same God who so frequently forbids it? Now we can easily see that the laws which may be suited to one age of the world may not be suited to another age. Our Lord says that this was suffered, "because of the hardness of the people's hearts;" it was an expedient required by the circumstances of the age, not a perpetual moral maxim, intended to regulate the intercourse and conduct of mankind in after ages. In the next place, is it not the fact, that there are different laws, not only for different ages, but for different states of the same community? The same laws would not do for the prison which are required for free and polished society; the same laws do not prevail in a penal colony as in the free mother country; the same laws will not do for Otaheite that will do for Britain. There must be a certain accommodation of the laws to the country they are intended to regulate. We have this illustrated in the present day in the conduct, for instance, of medical men. Suppose a person is seized with a dangerous disease, and is placed under a physician; and suppose he has been accustomed to take a great quantity of alcohol daily; the physician, though he will reprehend the use of alcohol, will allow that person a certain quantity of it every day, and will decrease it gradually every day until the patient is able to abstain from it wholly. Now it may have been that God allowed in the circumstances of other times the gradual diminution of a practice which, now when "life and immortality are brought to light," is utterly interdicted. Polygamy, like many other things, is not sinful till God interdicts it. It is God's prohibition that makes the sin, it is God's command that makes the virtue. Without God's law on the subject, there is no more guilt in polygamy, than there would be in violating the seventh day while God had not commanded to keep it holy : it is His command that makes it sinful. Polygamy is not essentially sinful like murder or theft; but it is

now become sinful because the command of God forbids it. Cain, in the infancy of the world, married his sister, and it was not then sinful; but now it would be most sinful, as well as revolting, to every right mind. So that you observe, there must be some adaptation between the age or the individuals, and the laws employed to govern and restrain them.

We now take our leave of our author. We are of opinion that so valuable a work as that of Dean Graves on the Pentateuch ought to be published in such a way as will command the most extensive circulation. This is the age of cheap literature, and we rejoice to add still better, the age of cheap republication of ancient and valuable literature. Those publishers who are engaged in the latter department would confer an

immense moral service on the Christian community by publishing in a cheap and popular shape a work so simple in style, so rich in reasoning, and so full of convincing and satis

fatory facts as these lectures on the five books of Moses unquestionably


That the Dean was a man of mind, of great Christian simplicity, and possessed of the purest sympathies with the highest destinies of our kind, it needs not the affectionate testimony of his son to convince us. His life constitutes one impressive comment on his creed, his practice the most eloquent proof of the divinity of the sacred truths he taught from the pulpit and from house to house. We are more and more convinced, not merely from divine testimony, but from the experience of years, that he who preaches as an angel and in' secret lives as a devil is the worst enemy Christianity has to contend with.

The memoir of the Dean is clearly and affectionately written; but were it otherwise, the writings of the author speak, and speak imperishably, for themselves.




WITHIN the last thirty years the eastern part of the palace at St. James's was consumed by fire; it was then occupied by the Duke of Clarence, afterwards our late King William IV. This conflagration was caused, as appeared, by one of the servants to his royal highness carelessly raking a fire out of a stovegrate on the first-floor, which induced his majesty King George III., to observe to Mr. Groebecker, one of her majesty's pages, on the morning after, "I have ever maintained that the safest place to leave a fire is in the grate."

After the decease of King Charles II. the ground-floor, and some of the first-floor apartments of St. James's

Palace, amongst which were these, underwent a purgation; for the mistresses of that flagitious sovereign had to seek new quarters, although many of them had saved money, part of the wages of their iniquity; and others, through the management of King James II, had contrived to retain their pensions.

It was soon publicly known that Charles, in derision of his subjects, as some said, who had so patiently endured his flagitious government, had died in the Romish faith; a fact which his weak successor, James, lost no time in making his people acquainted with.

How it could happen that two princes like Charles and James should

thus have attained to the years of discretion, having constantly before their minds the unhappy fate of the king their father, and after experiencing for so many years, as they did, expatriation from their native country, and being deprived so long of their legal inheritance, and Providence at last interposing and seating first one brother and then the other on the throne of their forefathers, and after such manifest evidences of Divine favour, and yet act as they did, appears to sober reason entirely incredible.

With such fearful admonitions ever before their eyes, with such a retrospect, considering the troubles that they had so happily surmounted and so marvellously survived, evinces a presumptuous daring on the part of these reckless princes, so preposterously wicked, indeed, as to leave us wrapt in wonder and astonishment at the contemplation of their flagitious government.

Charles being consigned to the tomb, it soon became too evident that King James shewed himself hastily anxious to patronise all persons of the Romish faith, and to obtain as many of them about his person as he could smuggle into the court. Hence the royal chapel soon exhibited visible demonstrations of the most glaring Papacy; for large wax-lights were seen burning upon the altar-table night and day, and the mass resounded in full chorus through the various avenues of St. James's Palace from the stentorian voices of the priests.

Here in one of the old state apart ments at the east end of the firstfloor, the queen of James II., late the Duchess of Modena, had her sleeping-chamber, which remained there within the present century, that part of the palace having received but little alteration from the abdication of James, the bigot sovereign.

This apartment, and several others en suite, were hung with splendid tapestry, richly wrought at the manu factory of Sir Francis Crane, at Mortlake in Surrey, for King James I.

In this chamber, in the year 1685, the queen, as was reported, gave birth to Prince James, who was pretty generally considered to be by all but the king's party merely a suppo→ sititious child-namely, a new-born infant, secretly introduced into the

queen's bed under a warming - pan without being heated.

The account of the birth of this supposititious heir to the crown was published in the Court Gazette; the cannon of St. James's Park and at the Tower of London announced the event; and the court annals of the time gave a circumstantial account of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other state officers and ladies of the court being in attendance in the next apartments to that of the queen, with her majesty's door open wide; but malgré these mock demonstrations, to quote Samuel Butler in his Hudibras, "Those persuaded 'gainst their will Will be o' the same opinion still.” Hence the case, to use the phrase of Westminster Hall, "had not a leg to stand upon."

Unfortunately for the upholders of the truth of the event, it was well known to the residents of the palace that there was a jib-door, which was covered with part of the tapestry in the panel in a room close behind the head of the royal bed; and further, that there was a private staircase that communicated both upwards and downwards to this very doorway in this back apartment.

Our Lady of Loretto (known to fame in England before the Reformation) had promised the royal bantling to the pious supplications of his majesty King James; but strangely enough this holy personage was not subpoenaed into court in proof of the birth, and of course we have not the authority of her evidence.

King James had proved himself an infatuated bigot, a priest-ridden tyrant, a savage, remorseless persecutor of his people, and deservedly merited his unhappy fate; for he remained in his palace until he was deserted by relations and friends to whom he might hope for support; for all whom he had favoured were known enemies to the people. Hence it became the general belief, that all the tales that were uttered to his prejudice were truths sacred as Holy Writ.

The king, having subdued the rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth in the west of England, who soon after lost his head upon the scaffold, now thought himself securely seated on the throne, when Judge Jefferies was

« ElőzőTovább »