SUMMARY OF THE MEANING OF THE RIVERS.

95

in the letter of the Word, are mere scientific things, adapted to the natural mind, and as such they will remain, until, from some more interior light, man begins to see their spiritual origin and use. Most professing christians know many things about the literal histories in the Word. They know something of the Histories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; also, about the House of Israel, in Egyptian bondage, their deliverance thence, and their subsequent establishment in Canaan; likewise, of the Government of the Judges, the rule of the kings, the denunciations of the prophets, and many other facts which the Word contains. But how few are they, who can see from any interior ground, that all these things are but external scientifics, which, nevertheless, include within them celestial and spiritual principles, which proves the letter to be divine. This is a desideratum in the church. We may believe these scientifics to be divine, because we have been taught that they are so, either by tradition or authority: but it is important we should see its truth from some interior conviction of our own; yet, this is accomplished only so far as our natural mind is influenced and illuminated by that stream of divine wisdom denominated Phrat. This may serve to show the meaning of that river, as mentioned in connection with the most ancient church.

From these considerations, we learn that the river of Eden denoted the divine wisdom proceeding from the divine love, and that its division into four heads, upon entering the garden, was signified its different influences upon the celestial, spiritual, rational, and scientific principles of holy and intelligent men.

That nothing natural could have been intended by those descriptions, must be evident to every one, who will venture to think above a common prejudice. Viewed in that light, it is full of difficulties, which neither ingenuity nor learning can remove. For instance, who does not know, that it is physically impossible a river should divide itself into four heads or sources of rivers. For if two or more channels are presented to a running stream, it will not divide itself distributively, but pour its whole mass into the deepest furrowit will naturally take the lowest level: and, moreover, there is no position known to scientific geography which at all answers to the Scripture narrative. Those which are supposed to come nearest to the description, and which indeed are very distant, necessarily place the locality of Eden in Armenia, which is not mentioned in the Scripture at all. A garden into

which one river ran, and which was then to be distributed into four other rivers, necessarily suggests the idea of a large tract of country, which we cannot rationally suppose the Lord would have required to have been "dressed and kept" by an individual, Adam. We conclude, then, that these things were written, not to point out a geographical locality, but to represent the streams of divine wisdom entering into the minds of a wise and happy people, to irrigate their mental soil, and render it prolific in all that is good and estimable in his divine sight.

By the divine wisdom of which we have been speaking, is meant, that interior dictate which we believe can and does flow from the Lord, into the will and perceptions of highly cultivated humanity. This, indeed, was the state of the most ancient people during the time of their integrity. They thought of nothing but what they loved, so that their intellectual and voluntary principles must have been in the closest connection, and, as it were, one in every thought and act. This is one of the reasons why that people were called Man, a dignity which does not appear to have been attained by any other community mentioned in the Scriptures! Some remains of this primeval excellence seem to have been recognized by the apostle, who, when speaking of the Gentiles, said, they "do by nature the things contained in the lawwhich shows the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness." (Romans ii. 14, 15.) It is also declared that the "Lord would put his law in the inward parts of men, and write it upon their hearts, so that he will be their God, and they shall be his people." (Jer. xxxi. 33.) It is therefore evident, that there can be such an influx of intelligence from the Lord as is mentioned above. The means, however, which are to be employed for its communication, in the case referred to, are the written Word. But such a medium does not appear to have existed among the Adamic people, nor could it have been necessary, so long as they remained in love to God above all things. The law and the prophets were given after this love was lost, with the view of assisting in its restoration: they "hang upon it." (Matt. xxii. 37–40.) In such a state they would receive instruction, in the way of internal dictate, immediately from the Lord. This would be inscribed upon their hearts, and from thence there would be an influx of truth into their spiritual minds, next into their rational, and finally, into their natural minds, and consequently, into the natural scientifics which there existed; this would

ADAM NAMING THE LIVING CREATURES.

97

enable them to see the absolute distinction between spiritual and natural things, and also, to perceive the correspondence which subsisted between them. Hence may be seen what is meant by the divine wisdom, spoken of above, and its respective inflowings into the several orderly principles of human character which then existed.

With such a people, internal and heavenly things would be perceived in purer light, than those which were external and worldly, because such things would occupy their chief attention. If such a people had read the Word which we possess, the internal sense of it would, doubtless, have been presented to their minds with greater clearness than the letter, because their states, as it were, lay entirely upon the heavenly side of this revelation. But in after-times this condition became reversed. Man, having descended from this elevation into external and terrestrial loves, can now see internal and spiritual things only in obscurity and shadow; and so the external sense of the Word appears to him in better light than its spiritual meaning: he has passed to the worldly side of revelation. This side of it has been mercifully provided for his state, and designed, by its peculiar construction, to raise and conduct him into the light and enjoyment of the other.

CHAPTER VIII.

ADAM NAMING THE LIVING CREATURES.

"Any theory, on whatever subject, that is really sound, can never be inimical to a religion founded on truth; and the part of a lover of truth is, to follow her, at all seeming hazards, after the example of Him, who came into the world, that He might bear witness to the truth."— RICHARD WHATELEY, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin.

THE circumstance of naming the living creatures is one of religious importance, and it involves matter of peculiar interest. It is thus related: “Out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam, to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Gen. ii. 19.) The careful reader will observe it is here stated, that "out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;" but if he will turn to the 20th verse of the first chapter, he will there find it written, "And God said, Let the

waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth, in the open firmament of heaven." Thus, in the one case the ground is said to have been their source, and in the other, the water. Whence arises this discrepancy? It may be admitted, that the command for the waters “to bring forth the moving creature that hath life,” ought to be understood as referring only to the piscatory tribes, for we find that purely land animals are spoken of as having been created on the following day. The difficulty more particularly adverted to is this, that in the first statement the waters are distinctly said to have brought forth every winged foul, whereas in the second it is as plainly written, that "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every fowl of the air." Now, what can be the reason of those apparently hostile statements, occurring as they do, so exceedingly close upon each other; and upon what principle are they to be reconciled? There is plainly a disagreement in the letter, which requires to be removed. The "Fragmental Hypothesis” would, perhaps, attempt it by supposing that they are merely the records of two different traditions of the same general circumstances, in which we are not to look for particular niceties of expression. But surely, this cannot be satisfactory; under such a view of the case, what is to become of the fact of both being equally a revelation, and consequently a divine composition? Some higher ground than the literal sense must be taken, because some superior truth is meant to be expressed, and we have mentioned the circumstance, not because we think it a difficulty, but chiefly, to draw attention to the truths intended to be stated.

It was observed above, that the first chapter of Genesis treated of the creation, or development, of the spiritual man, and all the living affections and thoughts which are proper to his condition; and also, that the second chapter treated of the celestial man, and all the living affections and thoughts which are proper to him. Some reasons for those distinctions were likewise.given; among others, that the man, in the second chapter, was no longer spoken of as “earth,” but as “ground,” and that the name of the Supreme Being was extended from "God" to "Lord God." Thus, the two chapters treat of two different states, which distinguished the most ancient people. To both of those states, there belonged an affection for the intellectual things of an exalted religion, but they took their rise in different sources, and therefore, their origination is differently described. In the first case, the affection for intel

A DISCREPANCY RECONCILED.

99

lectual things (which are the winged fowls) arose out of the general knowledge of religion, and therefore, it was commanded that “the waters" should bring them forth; (see page 53;) but in the second case, the affections for intellectual things (now called fowl of the air) sprung out of the prolifications of love, and hence they are described to have been made by the Lord God, out of "the ground."

Every one must know, that differences of religious character exist, and that they arise from different sources. It would not indicate the distinction to say, that the inferior state sprang from the same source as the superior; to describe them accurately, we must employ distinctive terms, and this is precisely what revelation has done, in declaring the intellectual things of the spiritual man, to have been created by God out of the water, and those of the celestial man out of the ground. There is, then, no actual discrepancy between the two statements, because they do not relate to the same, but to different circumstances.

In speaking of the fifth day's creation, it was observed, that the objects of animated nature were chosen, and frequently employed in the Word, to represent the living affections of men; further evidences of that fact were likewise promised: an occasion is here presented for this purpose.

It is evident, that some idea of the spiritual representation of animals must have been the reason, why they were so extensively employed in the sacrificial worship, which, independently of that established among the Jews, was spread throughout the continent of Asia. This, also, must have been the source, whence the Greeks and Romans adopted certain animals for sacrifices, during some of their public festivities. We do not suppose these people to have attached any spiritual notion to such sacrifices; what we mean is, that if they are traced through the sources whence they were derived, that will be found to have been their origin. Sacrifices, considered in themselves, are most irrational modes of worship, nor could they have been adopted, until men had sunk so low in the scale of religious intelligence, as to suppose that the offering up of an animal to the Lord, was the same thing as the dedication of that principle to His service, which it was originally understood to signify. The animal was mistaken for the principle which it represented, and the dedication of the principle to spiritual use was corrupted into a sacrifice. Their origin cannot be

*

* See Archbishop Magee on the Sacrifices and Atonement.