The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1873-05-10

that Chapter End is only detailed account
of Gods dealings with man, for whom the
world was made. Here is the matter in
nutshell. The 2nd Chapter of Gen. must
be an account of the same creation of man
as the LIST Chapter, or different one
Now, if the two Chapters treat of differ
ent creations, the greatest Bible scholars
the world has produced, and such giants
in the sciences of geology and natural his
tory as Guyot, Hawkins, Blumenbach,
i'Prichard &c, are entirely mistaken. If
the End Chapter is detailed account of
the same creation as in Chapter 1st our
friends differences fade away like the dew
before the morning sun. The reader will
not hesitate in deciding between the two
horns of the dilemma. Let us proceed
with this new light thrown on the subject.
The writer says there is no account of the
Garden of Eden in Chapter 1st, "for it
was not planted, nor any to inhabit it,
| Wonderful statement. Let him prove it.
The Bible says there was Garden of Eden,
for it teaches us (and geology confirms IT'D
that the world was created before man
was; in other words that an abode was
prepared for man to be in readiness, when
in due time the Triune God from the eter-
nal council chambers of heaven should
finish the plan Of creation, evolved from
| infinite wisdom by creating man the micro
cosm, the acme of all his words. The
writer says it does not appear that the
first creation was made of the ground, or
that the breath Of life was breated into
them. On the contrary, the Bible in Chap
ter End detailed account of Chapter LIST,
says that all these things did happen to
the first and only creation. He says he
has looked in vain for the first being for
hidden to eat of the tree Of knowledge,
&C., and hence, they did not fall; were not
in the garden, &c. The Bible says they
were in the garden, and did fall. If our
friend is right, then Adam did not fall we
are net sinners, Christ died for naught
Let the reader choose for himself. His
theory that Cain married one of these out
side, unfallen beings, has been SO complete
y " ttho'iSi, lbdb "o IutshS
no comment. lie supposes IS the sons of
God to be the first creation, and " daugh-
tiers of men" to be the descendants of fall
len Adam. Learned commentators all
agree, that mankind, at this early day, con-
sisted of two classes, those who loved God
and those who did not; that 1.-the sons of
God 1. e. professors of religion, married
the daughters of men, that is profane,
and strangers to God and godliness. See
End Cor. 6, IA; Deut. 7, 3, +, &c. &c. He
asks if tits not fair conclusion that the
giants referred to were another creation
No; for we have certainly shown authority
enough above to prove that there was but
one creation; and commentators say that
men of perhaps great stature, but more GER
tainly enormous wickedness are meant. He
goes on next to show that all men were
swept off the earth but Noah and his family,
and insists that all must believe it. Very
good we do believe, it. But let us see what
scylla and charybis our friend runs be-
tween by this admission. Let us suppose,
for the sake of argument that our friend
could show that there was another crea-
ton than that of Adam. Now this other
creation at the time of the flood, must
have been fallen or unfallen. If unfalen,
why should God sweep them off the
earth9 That would be inconsistent with
his nature, and a perfect abnegation of his
attributes. If the race not was fallen, why
punish them for the sins of Adams race ?
That would also be inconsistent. Our
friend should have chosen the partial deluge
theory, then he might engineer his top
heavy scheme with little more success.
Now as to the inhabitants of the earth
after the flood Our friend asks whether
the monaghan, Indian, &c, are descended
from the Caucasian race and created before
the flood? "No,' says he, "for in the
flood all died but Noah and his family"
But his next statement that "we have not
lost sight of Noah or his descendants
since" is simply absurd. 1t is directly in
opposition to the best authorities on this
subject in America and Europe, for the
most able philologists (see Whitney,
March, &C. say that the most difficult pro
bem for us to solve today is to trace the
wanderings of these descendants up and
down the earth for ages, and that the
science of philology meets here an almost
impossible chasm, because we have no his
! torical accounts of these people. Here
was opportunity for those changes which
] g how b1.,
spoken Of We would here introduce two
argu ments for the unity of the race. First.
Philology proves unity of Language
among all people, savage or civilization
| Second. The universally of the account
of the flood. How did the south African
which our friend insists, were shove up "
since the flood, get such a tradition of the
flood and their ancestors being saved in an
ark? God never created them with this
belief, and no white man has ted them?
Where did they get the tradition, if not
from the real occurrence? The writer now
mentions some descendants of Noah, to
show that We know where they all have
lived But are few, all? By no means.
Shem did, indeed, settle in Assyria, but was
Abram his only descendant? lamilcan
was the name of the father of Hannibal
and not Himliker as the writer says, and
was not sent out by the Queen of Tyre.
but was born many hundreds of years after
the founding of Carthage. He says, have
we not good reason to believe that the peo
pie of Oceanaca and Malacca have been
hove up since the flood? No. none at all.
/ Let him show shadow of proof. Geology
and philology, say no. Science is silent as
to UGH creations. The silence is ominous.
He says we have good reason to believe that
Oeeanaca and the Congo country did not
exist 1900 years. Let him consult ancient
history-As Bible. Geology and such
authorities as Guyot and Hawkins. They
assert the opposite opinion. Referring to
Luke, Chap IL, verse 81, he supposes ION
what authority ? the word utmost to
mean ertre melt; any Greek scholar can