in its qualities, like all other trees; and it is impossible that these qualities could have been both good and evil. Intrinsically and physically the fruit of this tree was "good for food." But the command of God relative to it made it the occasion of the development of moral good or evil. A moral being cannot develop in moral character, if there be no possibility of disobedience. To obey where there is no opportunity or occasion to disobey, is to live without a condition of moral growth or merit; hence the prohibition respecting the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This prohibition obeyed, would have been attended with good, as when disobeyed, it was attended with evil. The result in either case, too, would enter into the experience of the party obeying or disobeying; therefore the tree is designated, "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." In the prohibition respecting this tree, there is nothing that is in the slightest degree at variance with the principle of the divine moral government of the world as now conducted. Every command of God to his moral subjects is virtually a tree of knowledge of good and evil. If a command be obeyed, it results in an experience that is good; but if disobeyed, in an experience that is evil. That which is stated by the prophet Isaiah expresses a general principle, "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it" (chap. i, 19, 20.) Not only do we learn this from the written Word; but even those eternal principles which enter into the constitution of the nature of things, and which have respect to right and wrong, with their accompanying sanctions, testify that obedience to moral right is followed by good results, while disobedience is attended with bad results; and, as all the commandments of God are perfect in righteousness, all men might from this great truth learn in practical wisdom how to live for the attainment of good and the glory of God.

The question, In what part of the earth was the garden of Eden located, is one which is attended with very considerable interest. To this question many replies-some strange, and some very extravagant-have been given. So very various have these been, that it has been placed in nearly all parts of the world. Some have fixed its position on the earth, some under the earth; some at the north pole, some at the south; some in the air, and some in the moon; some in the third heaven, and some in fourth heaven. But a careful attention paid to the geographical account given by Moses, shows that all this indefiniteness and extravagance is without excuse. The rivers of Eden, as named and described by the inspired

writer, lead us almost to an absolute certainty as to the locality of the garden. The author of The Creative Week thinks that the "four heads" or rivers are to be accounted for thus-The river that watered the garden rose on the east of it, in the region of Eden, entered on the east side, winded westward through the garden, and, after issuing out at the west side, continued for a short distance still a single stream, then parted into two branches. Ultimately each of these branches also parted into two, and thus the river which passed through the arden entered the Persian Gulf in four divisions, or as the four rivers described by Moses. One objection we would urge against this explanation is, that it makes Moses expend all his particularly geographical and circumstantial description on rivers, which were, after all, very considerably removed. from the garden-the spot of special interest-of which he is giving an account. His description is made more like a decoy, than a guide to the subject he is describing. A second objection is, that no disposition of rivers is known on the earth, that would agree with that laid down in The Creative Week. To those who think that the crust of the earth was much broken up when the fountains of the deep were opened, to bring forth the waters of the deluge, this latter objection might appear devoid of force. But it requires to be kept in mind that Moses lived after the flood, and that he gives an account of the condition of the land and rivers as existing in his day, and assumes that it was such as would lead to the knowledge of the locality where "the Lord God planted a garden." We cannot therefore conclude that the flood obliterated those marks which guide to that part of the earth whereon God placed the first man.

Dr. Lewis, of America, gives in Lange's Commentary an explanation, which differs considerably from the foregoing. And he makes his explanation turn largely on the elasticity of meaning which he thinks the Hebrew word for river (nahar), as here used by Moses, possesses. Regarding its extended meaning he writes, " In the Eden territory itself, it might have had the form of a lake-an idea, in fact, which the whole aspect of the account greatly favours. It was certainly not a spring or fountainhead to four commencing streams, but rather a reservoir in which all were joined, whether as flowing in or flowing out." He also thinks that the term may be applied to a frith, an arm of the sea, an oceanic current, or the diverging shore of a great water. He supposes that two streams-rivers in the ordinary sense of the word, entered the Eden region on the north side, converged at the centre, and formed, perhaps, a kind of lake or reservoir. Then from this central convergence

there emerged, on the lower and south side, "two diverging seas, or shores of seas." "Those two," says Dr. Lewis, "which entered Eden from the north, were rivers within the modern limits of the term, but very great rivers. The other two probably presented a different appearance. Beyond the bounds of the Eden territory, they may have become friths, or arms of the sea, or two diverging shores of a great water, soon losing sight of each other."

We do not approve of this explanation as a whole, for (1.) It seems to lose itself in indefiniteness. To point out a garden by great branches of the sea seems rather inadequate. (2.) To use a medical mode of speech, there is a mixture of incompatibles. To represent a convergence of fresh water emerging into two "diverging seas or shores of seas, that, parting just below their junction, sweep round the land of India on the one side, and Arabia on the other," seems neither natural nor consistent. (3.) Such an extended application of the Hebrew word for "river" (nahar), if at all justifiable in literal narrative, is very far from common. (4.) It seems quite unwarrantable, in a paragraph so simple and continuous, so free from ambiguity, and so void of contrast, as that which gives the account of the rivers of Eden, to apply such a divergence of meaning to the same word-" river" (nahar).

From the sacred narrative it is quite plain that a river, a single stream, went out of Eden, and in this condition entered the garden. But from the standpoint of the garden it parted "into four heads." The Hebrew word for "head" is not by any means always equivalent to our English word. Into the Hebrew word the meaning of chief enters largely. Hence, instead of "four heads," we might read "four chief divisions." On this point the words of Dr. Lewis may be indorsed: "This is rendered heads in our version, and so the Vulgate, in quatuor capita. But they both mislead in their literalness, the Hebrew rosh never having, like our word, the sense of fountainhead or spring. The Shemitic tongues called the remote upper part of a stream a foot, or a finger, rather than a head." Neither does the word require us necessarily to go down the stream only, in search of the four divisions referred to. take our stand mentally in the garden, and in the first place look up the stream. The result is, that we, for a considerable distance, see one river only; but as we look beyond the limits of Eden, on the north side, we discover two rivers-the two chief divisions, which, by their convergence, or union, form the one river that runs through the garden. These two main divisions are the rivers Euphrates and Hiddekel, or Tigris, coming down from the mountains of Armenia. Looking down,

Let us

in the direction of the current of the river, we find that, as it passes out of the garden, it parts into two, forming the lower two main divisions-the Pison and the Gihon.

It is now necessary that we attend to the particulars of the description given by Moses, that we may see whether this mode of explanation relative to the rivers may be sustained.

The land wherein Moses wrote was Arabia Petrea; we must therefore keep in mind that this was the standpoint of the narrator. It is also necessary to keep in view that a Hebrew geographer took his standpoint of survey with the face turned towards the east. Eastward was therefore forward; to the right hand, the south; to the left, the north. Hence also, the Mediterranean Sea on the west was the "hindermost sea.” This sheds light, not only on this narrative, but also on Psalm exxi, and various other parts of Scripture.

The first river named by Moses is the "Pison." It lav nearly due east from the place where he wrote, and, naturally enough, he would mentally travel eastward-forward, first; hence he says, "The name of the first is Pison." It is geographically described as that river "which compasseth the whole land of Havilah"; that is, it washes, by a winding stream, the whole eastern side of that land. A short logical comparison, we trust, will make this evident. Let us first remember that the "wilderness of Shur" lay eastward of Egypt. When the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, they went out into this region (Exod. xv, 22). It lay thus before, or to the east of Egypt, and formed the western limit of a region of country which was inhabited by the tribes of people named in the following quotations:-" And they (the Ishmaelites) dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before (ie., eastward of) Egypt" (Gen. xxv, 18). "And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt" (1 Sam. xv, 7). Beginning with Egypt, and proceeding eastward, we cross the Red Sea, reach the Wilderness of Shur, pass through that region of Arabia now just referred to, then reach the land of Havilah, which borders with it on the east. Havilah, therefore, must be on the west of that river which washes its eastern shore as it flows into the Persian Gulf; and what is more likely than that this river should be the Pison-one of the diverging streams flowing from that convergence of water formed by the junction of the Tigris and the Euphrates?

The name "Pison" means wide-spreading, overflowing, fluvius inundans (Simon). This is an exceedingly appropriate name for a river flowing into the Persian Gulf, for there the tide rises very high, and would cause a continual periodical overflowing of the banks of the Pison. "The violence of the

Persian Gulf causes a reflux of water thirty leagues above the mouth of the Euphrates" (Calmet).

As another-point helping to the identification of the locality where the garden of Eden was planted, Moses tells us that in the land of Havilah, which was in part surrounded by the Pison, "there is gold," and he adds, "the gold of that land is good." Keeping in mind that Havilah forms part of Arabia, it becomes easy to adduce testimony from profane history, as well as from sacred writers, in favour of the gold of that country. "Diodorus writes that in Arabia was found natural gold, of so lively a colour that it was very much like the brightness of the fire, and so fixed that it wanted neither fire nor refining to purify it" (Lib. ii, cap. 14, et Lib. iii, cap. 3). A glance at Ezekiel xxvii, 22, 23, will show that with Eden and other places merchants had traded in gold.

The next article making up the riches of that land, and mentioned by Moses, is in our version translated "bdellium.” The two most common opinions among learned interpreters regarding this word, are-(1.) that it denotes an aromatic gum; (2) that it denotes pearls. A little attention to a short process of evidence will lead, we believe, to a decision in favour of the latter opinion. In Num. xi, 7, Moses uses the same word we have here, in giving a description of manna. He says, "And the manna was as coriander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of bdellium." The question now rising for solution is, What was the colour of bdellium? It was the colour of the manna. If, therefore, we find out the colour of the manna, we find out also the colour of bdellium. In Exod. xvi, 31, we read, "And the house of Israel called the name thereof manna: and it was like coriander seed, white." We thus find that bdellium was a little round substance, like coriander seed, and of a white colour. This will apply to no kind of aromatic gum or spices, but is a very perfect description of pearls. The conclusion, therefore, is plain: bdellium means pearls. Then, if we are explaining correctly, we may expect to find some evidence that pearls abounded in the land of Havilah. Neither is this wanting. Nearchus, the captain who conducted the fleet of Alexander the Great, in his Indian expedition, sailed to the Persian Gulf; and he speaks of an island in that gulf which abounded in pearls. Isidorus, of Charax, who lived a little later, says the same thing. Pliny says that those pearls which "are fished towards Arabia, in the Persian Gulf, deserve most to be praised." Elian, Origen, and many others, down even to modern travellers, bear similar testimony.

The "onyx stone" is the next element of riches mentioned