over. Thus in the time of Jacob, Shechem the Hivite had succeeded as governor of that part of the land; and so these lands were continually changing hands among the original possessors and their posterity. Therefore as the Canaanite had been in the land from the time of Canaan the son of Ham, it shows the profound ignorance of objectors, who have supposed that the Canaanite was not in the land till after David. Surely these men, who generally are intelligent men, must know, what is known to every school-boy, that references are made over and over again to the Canaanites, five hundred years before the time of David. OBJECTION. "In Gen. chap. xiv. the writer gives an account of Lot being taken prisoner; and when the account came to Abraham, he armed all his household and marched to rescue Lot from the captors, and that he pursued them unto Dan. But in Judges xviii. 29. it is said, that the Danites changed the name of the town of Laish to that of Dan, which was not till 331 years after the death of Moses. Therefore it was impossible that this book should be written in the time of Moses, because there was no such place as Dan.” ANSWER. But there is not the least reasonable pretence for sup posing that the Dan mentioned in Judges was the same Dan mentioned in Genesis: it is not said that the Dan in Genesis was a town; whereas it is expressly said in Judges, that they changed the name of the town of Laish to that of Dan. As this Dan, mentioned in Genesis, is introduced as a town, it certainly was the business of the DEIST to prove that it was a town. It is no uncommon thing we know for a town and a river to be called by the same name; as for instance in England; WYE a town in Sussex, and WYE a river in Monmouthshire; TAME a town in Oxfordshire, and TAME a river from the river Thames. Sheffield in Yorkshire was formerly called SHEF, from the river SHEF, which runs near that town. But unless it can be proved that the Dan mentioned in Genesis was a town, all that has been said by the DEIST concerning the Dan in Judges being the same as the Dan in Genesis, is supposition, and supposition proves nothing. Neither did the river Jordan derive its name from two smaller rivers called Jor and Dan, (as is by some asserted,) whose streams uniting in one, were then called Jordan; because the river Jordan has only one spring head, rising near the foot of the mount Lebanon.. I will now give my reason for asserting that the Dan mentioned in Gensis was no other than the river Jordan, and show from whence it had its name. The word Jordan is a compound word, formed by the two words Jor and Dan. Jor means to cast down, applied to the casting down, or overcoming an army. Exod. xv. 4. Numb. xxi. 30. also any thing descending with rapidity; a RIVER a TORRENT of water: it signifies with what rapidity Abraham descended to the plains of Jordan, where he cast down, and overcame the kings, and rescued Lot. The word Dan, means judge or judgment; Gen. xxx. 6. ch. xlix. 16; Deut. xvii. 8.; Jer. v. 20. Now it was always a custom with the Hebrews to give names to things significant, either on account of their locality, or of some particular circumstance having taken place in their favor; as Eschol, the river of grapes; Eshcol meaning grapes. Besor, tidings, or the river of tidings; Kidron, mourning, or the river of mourning; Kishon, strength, or the river of strength; Dan, judgment, or the river of judgment. Now I come to the application. Lot was situated in the plain of Jordan, Abraham pursued the kings who had taken Lot prisoner, to this plain, bounded by the river Dan, defeated them, and thus executed a just judgment upon them, which is meant by pursuing them unto Dan, or Judgment. It being therefore a custom with the Hebrews, on what they considered a signal interposition of Divine Providence, to give names to places and things expressive of the transaction; hence the word Dan, judgment, was with great propriety affixed to the word Jor, which makes Jordan, or the river of Judgment. But perhaps may be said that the river Jordan could not have derived its name from the memorable victory which Abraham obtained over the kings, because Jordan is mentioned in the former part of the chapter. Yet this would be of no mo it ment; for the time was very short between Lot's settling in the plain of Jordan, and his being taken prisoner, not more than four years; and Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis, lived 400 years after Abraham. From which it is evident that there is no ground for this objection, though so strikingly forcible as Deists have shaped it; but like the former one, the meaning and application has been altogether misunderstood by them to the present day, even as it stands in the translation. OBJECTION. "Supposing Abraham to have been born a Chaldean, is not all that preceded that man, whether true or false, a Chaldean account, solely founded on the traditions and monuments of the Chaldeans? Genesis therefore is not a Jewish history, but a monument borrowed by the Jews from some foreign people." ANSWER. Nobody who knows any thing of the Bible ever supposed that the ancient part of the book of Genesis was the history of a people written before that people were in existence. Neither is it a Chaldean account, founded on the traditions and monuments of the Chaldeans. Mr. Volney, who makes this objection, will do well to read the tenth chapter of Genesis, and he will find that the monarch of Babel was Nimrod, the grandson of Ham; but the Hebrews were the descendants of Shem. Now, as Ham was an idolator, and as Shem was a worshipper of the true God, which worship came down to Abraham in a regular descent, it is absurd to suppose, as this writer supposes, "that all that precedes Abraham is a Chaldean account," unless we are to suppose that the Chaldeans, before the time of Abraham, were the only people in the world. OBJECTION. “Gen. xxxii. 24. And Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled a man with him, until the breaking of the day; and when he saw that he prevailed not, he touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was. out of joint, as he wrestled with him." The DEIST Concludes this quotation by saying, "This passage needs no comment." ANSWER. From the answers given to the passages brought forward by the EIST, the impartial reader will begin to be sensible, that wherever any incongruis may appear to the DEIST to occur in the common version, they do not assume that appearance in the original Hebrew; another proof of which we have in this passage. The word abeek, rendered in the common version wrestled, means to contend in argument. The man who met Jacob, was a judge in the land of Edom, sent by Esau to enquire whether Jacob came to demand the property and possessions of his father: and he informed him that he came to claim nothing of the kind, but that his birthright was only for the succession to the priesthood. Neither is there any authority for the clause," the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint." When Jacob had shown that he had no demand on the possessions of his father, the judge administered the customary formula of blessing, which on such occasions was done by clapping the hand on the loins. And it may appear equally strange to the people of the East, that the people of the West confirm the most solemn of all oaths by kissing the Bible. The verses truly read-" And Jacob remained only, when a man contended with him, till the ascending of the dawn. When he saw that he prevailed not against him, then he touched the hollow of his loin; thus he clapped the hand on the loin of Jacob, after he contended with him." OBJECTION. "If God set his bow in the clouds, as a token of his covenant with mankind after the flood, ought we not to conclude that he at that time, established the law of the various refrangibility and reflexibility of the rays of light, and consequently, that before the flood many optical experiments, which are common with us, would not then have succeeded? For example, a man could not have made a rainbow by spouting water out of his mouth." ANSWER. But the original does not say that God set the rainbow in the clouds, after the flood. It expressly says, that God had set the bow in the cloud, before the flood; and it is only referred to by way of declaring, that as certainly as God had set the rainbow in the cloud, (a natural phenomenon, as well known in the time of the antediluvians as it is now,) so surely he would fulfil the covenant he had made for man. The Hebrew reads, "I have set my bow in the cloud." Consequently we ought to conclude that God at the creation established the law of the various refrangibility and reflexibility of the rays of light; and therefore before the flood, all optical experiments which are common with us, would have succeeded, for the laws of nature were the same then as now; nor does Moses in the Hebrew text even insinuate any thing to the contrary. OBJECTION. The DEIST says, "When the unbelievers affirm that a just God could not punish Pharaoh for a hardness of heart, of which he himself (God) was evidently the cause, the usual answer is, that the potter has power over the clay, to fashion it as he lists; but when in reply they take notice, that if the clay in the hands of the potter were capable of happiness or misery, according to the fashion impressed on it, the potter must be malevolent and cruel, who can give the preference to inflicting pain instead of happiness." ANSWER. But the DEIST should have understood, that in the Original Hebrew it is never said, God hardened the heart of Pharaoh; for in Exodus ix. 3. the word aksheh, which is erroneously rendered hardened, literally means to make sore, to trouble. See 1 Sam. v. 7. "for his hand was sore upon us." And the 4th verse, where the first clause is improperly rendered, "but Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand on Egypt." And |