Spirit of the age. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1849-1865, 1856-05-07

wards, God threatens to bring plague of
locusts, which should destroy what the
hail had left. We asserted that it would
have been absurd to say that the locusts
should eat the residue, if every herb had
been destroyed. But P. A. ?. contends
that they might have eaten what the hail
had smitten, or the wheat and the rye
which were not smitten because they were
not grown UP. To which we reply: God
intended the locusts as judgment upon
the Egyptians for their refusal to let his
people Israel CO. 1t would not have been
a judgment for them to have eaten what
was already destroyed, or what was too
small to be smitten by hail such as never
had been before, and by fire which was
mingled with the hail and which ran along
upon the ground. Hence, his objection
involves the 'blasphemous absurdity, that
God threatened as judgment, that which,
in the end, would not prove to be one.
3, He objects to our argument in favor
of limited deluge on the ground of its
being sufficient to accomplish Gods pur-
pose as revealed in Scripture, and, that
therefore, universal one was unnecessary. |
His objections may be summed up as fol-
lows: |. Since the object of the deluge
was to destroy man, why should other crea-
lures have been involved in the calamity 2
2. Since those who were saved might have
been directed to those parts of Asia where
the waters did not prevail, why should No
ah be employed "to build an ark at such
an immense outlay of time and means ?"-l
g. Since we object to uniuersdl deluge,
why may not he object to any deluge at
ALL since man could have been destroyed
by so many different methods To all Of
which we reply: 1. The relation which
man sustains to the lower animals as their
lawful heayen-appointed lord, is such, that
HE cannot suffer any great calamity with
out its effects extending to them. And
had they been conveyed to those regions
where the waters did not prevail, mans
authority over them, which God gave him
in the beginning, would have ceased to exist,
They would have been entirely without
the pale Of his jurisdiction, and all connec-
tion between them would have been entire
ly severed. Hence the propriety of pla-
cling them under Noah, in the ark. 2.
The wisdom and mercy of God in direct
ing Noah to bull an ark, instead of re-
moving, is displayed in the following ways ::
l. 1t was more signal display Of his pro-
tecting power, and his tender care for those
who love Him, than a removal would have
been, and was calculated to make deeper
and more lasting impression, not only on
those who were preserved, but on all COM
ing generations. 2. 1t afforded the ante
deluvians stronger proof of Noah's sin
cerity, and his admomitions to them were
] more likely to be needed, since the power
J full weight of example was added to his pre-
: cepts. 3. 1t tested Noah's abiding conf
7 dence in God. And, 4th. 1t afforded to
future ages more striking example of a
7 life ofJdHh, and gives us an able exposi
: tion of its power. From these reasons we
r think that ga any reasonable man" will bt
d convinced both of the propriety and neces
s sity of building an ark. 3. P. A. P wish
= es to be allowed to object to partial del
+ uge, as he can see no necessity for it, sine
a God could have destroyed the world by s.
t many different methods. Certainly, if h
: can reconcile such an objection with tn
DlDlO, VIC udNC uO OUJCCJlOn' DuC Gho
9 God did destroy the world that then was
IS by deluge, both he and ace must admit
It and we must look for it's necessity in hi
e purpose to make this his chosen agent 9
n destruction. Our opponent may wish t
: refer the necessity of universal deluge
g Gods purpose; but until he can show tha
d such necessity did exist, we can NEE
e him on the ground that it would be incor
" sistent with God S wisdom, for Him to pm
'e pose that which was wholly unnecessary.
rs 4. 7. A. p. supplies an amount of WI
ter sufficient to cover the whole earth
n the depth of five miles, by saying, tn;
:, the mere raising of the temperature of tn
10 whole body of the ocean, to height 4
lie greater than marine animals live in, in tt
al shallow seas between the tropics, would {
a. expand it, as more than to produce
at height above the mountains, stated in IL
d. Mosaic account" From text before u
cy we learn, that the greatest heat of Il
III surface of the ocean, SSo5 of Fahrenhei
Id is found in the Gulf Of Mexico, and in OF
M of the havens of New Guinea" Now, '
nc call upon p. A. p. to prove one of ty
his things, viz: either, that, in raising Il
IN temperature of the water of the ocean
er SSo5, it will expand eight times its VI
n ume, or, that universal deluge, such
ley he contends for, would not require eig
ges times the amount of water now on t
his globe. Neither of which positions, we q
,he very confident, he can substantiate. Ar
md if he cannot, his mode of supply is sigl
yer abortion, and our argument remains inta
the 5. He objects to the argument deriv
ev- from the capacity of the Ark. Admitti
the the number of animals taken into the A
DIV, to have been no greater than he athrr
so !" about two hundred, or two hundred a
Who fifty pair we acknowledge that there '
the sufficient room for them and their prov
ere ions. But if the deluge had been univ
ter sal, would not pairs and septuples of
in existing animals have been preserved
lich Most surely p A. p. will not deny an
nch sertion so plainly inferable from the nal
I'M tive of Moses. Now, there are existing
hOr- present l 500 species of mammalia, 81
= Of birds, 1,5Q0 of reptiles, 5000 of 6s
iety and 100000 of insects, and there
any also doubtless many species still unkno
the to the naturalist In addition to these,
that number of extinct species amounts
Bi- 2,l65 Thus, we see, that the whole n
trio Der of distinct species amounts to 12l,
sage pairs, and septuples of all of which W
emily have been taken into the ark, had the