66

66

charging itself out of Eden, of which he speaks; which four confluent streams, therefore, cannot have any relation to the four rivers recited by the scholiast in the gloss'. The younger Rosenmuller, though he interprets quatuor fluvii-four rivers," is obliged nevertheless to acknowledge, fluvius ille, ex quo quatuor alii orti sunt, "hodie frustra quæritur—that river, out of which four other rivers arose, is in vain sought for at "the present day." Nor can we wonder at this ill success; for, it is the nature of all rivers to grow by confluence. No river separates its waters into different rivers, unless we choose to give that name to the divisions of its stream by the delta or alluvial tract formed at its mouth, in consequence of the perpetual conflict between the sea and its flood; but, this character, it is evident, cannot have any relation to the great mediterraneous rivers enumerated and specified. When, therefore, a recent zealous commentator peremptorily insists, that "the four Asiatic rivers are geographically "marked out, and determined, and identified by

1 The error has proceeded, from misapprehending the reference with which the historian states the separation of the waters, and from assuming, that he refers to the points towards which they flowed; whereas, he refers to the points from which they issued. The Greek renders, se apoρίζεται εις τέσσαρας αρχας. Now ww (αgxn) signifies both head or beginning, and corner or extremity; and, from this double sense has resulted the mistake of reference. The fiction, which made Eden the centre of the world, drew on the false interpretation, that four rivers flowed from that centre to points in the surrounding circumference. But, if we consider the text philologically and critically, we shall perceive, that its true import is that which is here exposed.

Schol. ad. Gen. p. 23.

"postdiluvian characteristics;" and, when a recent Journalist ventures to affirm, "we find that the

66

Assyrian rivers which originally marked the "situation of Eden, retain the same geographical "relations1;" they shew, that they are perfectly unaware how thoroughly this question has been sifted by the latest and ablest inquirers, and how it truly stands at the present day before the learned world. 66 Horum nihil cum satisfaciat (says Michaelis) desperemus Phisonem paradisi, donec novæ quid lucis adfulgeat.-Certi quid statuere non licet." Those writers, therefore, only hold to the ancient error, of which Michaelis says" ex conjectura natum, ac vero parum felici3."

66

But, since all the rivers named in the gloss have their origin in Armenia, the locality alone enables us to perceive, that its Hebrew author was deeply impressed with the traditions respecting the seat of the Renewal of the human race, and that he confounded and identified it with that of its Origin; and, that he thus violently applied to the latter, the characters properly and exclusively pertaining to the former, in which confusion he is very generally followed even at the present day'. The fluvial description intro

1 FABER'S Three Dispensations, vol. i. p. 136: and British Critic, No. cxxiv. p. 395.

2 Suppl. ad Lex Heb. No. 2030.

3 Ibid. No. 2300.

Thus, the younger Rosenmuller states of Eden-" Eden, is tractus "fuit qui hodie Armenia, &c. vocatur:" and of Ararat" montes Ara

duced into the four verses, cannot therefore be regarded, critically, as forming any part of the Mosaical history; and consequently, it can have no power to affect the strong evidence which has been deduced from that history, and from the sense of the ancient Jewish and Christian churches, of the DESTRUCTION of the PRIMITIVE EARTH by the waters of the DELUGE.

A cautious and vigilant critic, has well remarked "the dangerous ground of conjecture; "which ought never to be admitted, without the most obvious necessity, into biblical investigations1." Such necessity, can only be constituted by the presence of direct and positive contradiction. "Most

66

66

certainly, (observes Kennicott,) the closest atten"tion should be paid to all such mistakes as "introduce confusion and contradiction. Neither of "these, could have obtained originally; and, both "of them have frequently been objected by the "advocates of infidelity." But, the case before us exhibits a signal example of that contradiction; and therefore, of the obvious necessity demanding, and therefore warranting, the critical interposition which has been here undertaken. For, the destruction of the primitive earth, is, as we have thoroughly seen, a fact rooted in the very substance

"ratici in Armenia sitos esse," &c.: (in Gen. ii. 8. and viii. 4.) a statement, which bears upon its face a very manifest evidence of improbability and confusion.

1 Eclectic Review, for Jan. 1823, p. 53.

2 Dissertations, vol. i. p. 223. See note to p. 419.

of the sacred scriptures, and spreading its root from the text of Moses to that of St. Peter; whereas, the contradiction of that fact contained in the geographical gloss, lies loosely and unrooted on its surface, and only on this one particular point of it. Since, then, a manifest contradiction of the former is produced by the presence of the latter, and since the one must of necessity give place to the other; it is unquestionably the office and the duty of sound and scrupulous criticism, to demonstrate the invalidity of the latter, in order that the important testimony of the former may stand unimpaired.

CONCLUSION.

We have, now, considered the principal arguments which have induced the Mineral Geology to assume, that there must have been MORE general revolutions of this globe than the Two recorded in the Mosaical history; and we have found, on close and assiduous examination, that the plurality thus assumed is the offspring of defective investigation, unregulated fancy, and a determined disregard of authenticated testimony; and, that the numerous revolutions" which it asserts, are all reducible in point of fact, to those Two only. We have found that if "the appearance of the sharp

66

peaks and rugged indentures which mark the "summits of the primitive or primordial mountains, and strike the eye at a great distance as proofs of the violent manner in which they have been formed," is " very different from that of "the rounded mountains and the hills with flat surfaces, whose recently formed masses have always remained in the situation in which they "were quietly deposited by the sea which last covered