of each successive period. Whoever pronounces with unhesitating confidence, or with judicial authority, upon the men or things of other ages, will do well to ascend a tribunal of such commanding elevation, and so to enlarge the powers of his vision, that the long series of past events and transactions, from the first creation of the world, will all be present to his view. But to no history are these remarks so applicable as to the sacred history; for no other embraces so long a period of time or customs, and modes of society so essentially different from our own. We must become, in knowledge and in feeling, a child with Adam in Paradise, having need of the immediate tutelage of his Creator, tried as to his obedience by a most simple test, directed in the choice of his food, naked, and, knowing it not, hiding himself from the presence of his Creator, and in his simplicity pleading an apology which directly implied the commission of an offence, and even provided with his clothing by the immediate hand of his Maker. We must remember that the patriarchal times savoured strongly of this simplicity. We must place ourselves under the tuition of the patriarchs, and as children learn for them that filial reverence, which personages so venerable for their age, their piety, and their evident intercourse with heaven, would naturally inspire. We must perceive, in the absence of all the elaborate, refined, political systems and institutions of later times, the necessity of such a reverence for the father, and of the unlimited control with which he was invested over the person and property of the son, and even extending, by a kind of prophetic blessing or cursing, to the future destiny of his posterity. We must learn to regard the patriarchal system as a continuation of that mode of moral discipline and instruction which was exercised towards the first created pair by God himself. We must look upon the patriarchs as the vicegerents of Jehovah. When we shall have done so, we shall be prepared to view this part of Noah's history in a new light. But it is time to introduce the history itself: "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son* had done unto him: and he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, And he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; The drunkenness of the patriarch had its origin in his simplicity. "He began to be an husbandman." In his first essays at cultivation, he discovered the juice of the grape. He invented wine. Pleased with its grateful flavour, he made experiment of its untried powers. But he found that under its agreeable semblance there lurked an enemy of match * It is a question what was the order of the sons of Noah in point of age. They are invariably mentioned in this order -Shem, Ham, and Japheth; but it is not certain that this was the order of their age. If it was, Ham must have been called the younger son with reference to Shem alone. less strength. He was overcome, and he learned by his overthrow that "wine is a mocker, strong drink raging, and whoso is deceived thereby is not wise." So much for Noah's drunkenness. It was an unwitting surprise. The offence of Ham was not so trivial as a cursory inspection of the narrative would lead us to suppose. It did not consist in the accidental discovery of his father's nudity. He might have been guilty of intrusion into his father's tent. At least, the mention of the fact to his brethren was not accidental. It was most probably made in a tone of mockery and derision. It was certainly prompted by an unfilial spirit. It was a gross outrage upon the rules of oriental modesty,* and an irreverent disregard of the paternal officean office whose authority and dignity are, in the scriptures, guarded by the most solemn sanctionsan office always of vital importance to the interests of society, and, in a strictly political view, especially so in those early times. Hence a regard to filial duties was encouraged by the promise of the greatest blessings; and the most dreadful denunciations were uttered against an insolent mockery of parents. "The eye that mocketh at his father and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it."† The offence of Ham, then, was not small as against his father. But when we reflect that his father was a patriarch-a prince in whom resided the supreme authority, and also a minister of religion, the medium of communication between God and man, it appears greatly enhanced. The safety of the patriarchal majesty demanded that it should not pass unnoticed. But why was the curse pronounced upon the innocent Canaan? It was not he who committed *Hab. ii. 15, 16. Rev. iii. 18. Ex. xx. 26. + Prov. xxx. 17. the offence. Is not this an extraordinary mode of dispensing justice, to punish the unoffending son for the crime of the parent? Let us see in what the punishment consisted. Did it affect Canaan personally? Is the sense really that the grandson of Noah was made a slave to Shem and to Japheth? What was generally the patriarchal blessing-personal or national? When Isaac blessed Jacob, and said "Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee; be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee," does he not manifestly speak of the two nations of whom it had already been declared by divine announcement "the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger?" Of the same national import is that divine poem the prophetic blessing of Jacob upon his sons, assembled to hear from his inspired lips, "what should befall them in the last days." "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Zebulon shall dwell at the haven of the sea, and he shall be for an haven of ships, and his border shall be unto Sidon. Dan shall judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel." This passage is sufficient to show beyond all doubt, that this blessing was national, not personal. Yet in this same prophetic dispensation of political privileges, the patriarch degrades Reuben from the excellency and prerogatives of the first-born, and divides Simeon and Levi in Jacob, and scatters them in Israel, as he distinctly declares, for the commission of personal offences. Are we then to understand, that Ham's offence was really connected with the subjugation of the Canaanites by the Israelites? Are we to understand that the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi really suffered the loss of political privileges in consequence of the sins of their founders? It may be So. Who can say what, in the order of Divine Providence, was the beginning of a series of events which terminated in such results! It was sufficient, however, to render the patriarchal blessing and cursing most potent engines of authority,-that they were believed to be connected with personal conduct. They certainly were so connected in the patriarchs' minds, whether they were in fact or not. Such efficacy was ascribed to them, that the most earnest desire must have existed in their children to obtain the one, and to escape the other.* When therefore Noah, awaking, learned the conduct of his sons, and the breathings of divine inspiration came over him, he vindicated his violated dignity by uttering these words of prophetic import, concerning the future condition of his posterity. Had he been instigated by feelings of resentment or malice, they would have found vent in imprecations upon Ham personally, of whom he says not a word. CHAPTER V. WAS the deluge universal or partial, is a question which has been much discussed. But generally, those who have discussed it, do not seem to have had any definite understanding of its true nature. In the minds of most men, it resolves itself into this: Does the sacred writer intend to say, that the whole globe, as we now behold it, with all its lofty mountains, its wide-spreading continents, its numerous islands, Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, were *Gen. xxvii. |