Notes Critical and Practical, on the Book of Genesis. By George Bush [pp. 271-301]

Bush on Genesis.
Though the sober belief of the author led him to denominate
the work miraculous, how vastly does he derogate from its
character as such by the adoption of a lame theory, to account for that which God himself has accounted for in a
more congruous and satisfactory way? Prefacing the discussion with a remark which prepares us fully for the sequel.
"It does not perhaps detract from the supernatural character
of the visitation to suppose that the Almighty saw fit to employ natural agencies in bringing it about." p. 315. As
though thepossible interference of such an hypothesis with the
scriptural representation were not enough-as though it were
the part of a Christian commentator to make choice of
human theories, and determine only which of them is best.
Of either theory we say, that it is far beneath the great design which Jehovah had in view. The judgment wvas to be
so manifestly preter-natural that all should acknowledge it of
God. Yet if the neighbouring Edomite or Horite, as he
gazed upon the conflagration, recollected only the combustible
properties of the soil, why need he think of a vindictive
Judge, or why refer the catastrophe to the impious character
of the inhabitants, when a single dart of the electric fluid,
straying from a thunder cloud, could fully, to his mind, account for the event. Or how should the modern traveller judge otherwise, if he might attribute the calamitous
event to volcanic eruptions, belonging to the nature of the
territory? Vesuvius and Etna have swept their heated billows over an unsuspecting population, not pre-eminent in
crime; and where, apart from revelation, would be the evidence that in special, direct interposition for crying enormities of sin, Jehovah appeared over Sodom and Gomorrah
'in flaming fire taking vengeance?' The Almighty would
leave the judgment beyond all question, and doubtless would
thus have emptied the vials of his burning wrath upon the
guilty cities however otherwise had been the geological attributes of their soil. This was a method of punishment
which carried with it awful evidence of its origin, and therefore it was chosen.
Diodati thus interprets, v. 24. "The Son of God who had
appeared unto Abraham and Lot made this rain to fall by
some word or token, which rain was caused by God's omnipotency, and showered upon the land without any natural
cause." Explained upon the rational hypotheses the event
presents us very much the same aspect of divine interposition as does the burning of Moscow, by the Russians. In
296
[ArPiIL