flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth." (Gen. ix. 11-17.)

We feel great difficulty in offering any exposition of this passage. The fact, that the bow here spoken of is the rainbow, has, we believe, never been disputed. But then it is alleged that, as the rainbow is an ordinary result of an immutable natural law, it must frequently have been seen before the Deluge; and, if so, that it could not be any sign or assurance of this covenant which God had been graciously pleased to establish with the new world. We might easily fill pages with the conflicting opinions of learned men on this subject; but we are disposed to receive all these speculations with great qualification. It does not appear to be certain, even admitting the rainbow to have been common before the Flood, that it could not be an efficient token of the Divine "covenant." Nothing appears more probable than that Noah and his sons, having witnessed the terrible effects of the Deluge, should have afterward looked with extreme apprehension even on a shower. Josephus confirms this surmise, and states, "But as for Noah, he was afraid, since God had determined to destroy mankind, lest he should drown the earth every year; so he offered burnt-offerings, and besought God, that nature might hereafter go on in its former orderly course, and that he would not bring on so

great a judgment any more, by which the whole race of creatures might be in danger of destruction; but that, having now punished the wicked, he would, of his goodness, spare the remainder, and such as he had hitherto judged fit to be delivered from so severe a calamity." The Jewish historian goes on to describe the sacrifice of Noah in connexion with his prayer, and God's gracious acceptance of both; adding, that the Almighty assured the pious patriarch that he would no more destroy the earth with a flood; and promised, "If I shall at any time send tempests of rain in an extraordinary manner, be not affrighted at the largeness of the showers; for the waters shall no more overspread the earth; but I will give you a sign that I have left off my anger by my bow."* It does, therefore, seem admissible, that the bow, although often seen before, might, by the special appointment of God, minister confidence and hope to the family of Noah as a sign of the covenant which the Divine mercy had established with mankind. We think this possible; but we are bound to say that it does not, in our judgment, afford the best exposition of the subject.

We have not, in the whole range of scripture history, any case similar to the one before us, explained in this manner. We have indeed many instances in which the Lord has condescended to give signs to his creatures. Unto Ahaz he said, "A virgin shall conceive," &c.; (Isai. vii. 14;) unto Abraham, a "smoking furnace and a burning lamp" were displayed; (Gen. xv. 17;) unto Hezekiah, the shadow went ten degrees back on the dial of Ahaz; (2 Kings xx. 11; Isai. xxxviii. 8;) and, in the case of Gideon, "the fleece was wet, and all the ground about it was dry;" and then afterward, "it was dry, and all the ground about was wet." (Judges vi. 38-40.) But, in all these cases, we have something new in nature,-no mere application of a well-known pre-existing phenomenon. We do not think that the case before us should be so interpreted as to form an exception to this general rule. Yet we do not

* JOSEPHUS'S "Antiquities," lib. i. cap. 3. sect. 7, 8.

clearly see our way to a satisfactory solution. The passage presents an indeterminate problem on the ground of insufficient data. We will not dogmatize on the subject; but venture to suggest what appears to us to be the most probable solution, that this bow had not been seen prior to the Flood; and that some change at that time took place, either in the state of the atmosphere or in the refrangible. power of drops of rain, which then produced, and still continues to produce, the beautiful phenomenon which we call the rainbow.

We do not perceive any thing unreasonable or extravagant in this supposition. A very slight change of the kind we have alluded to, would make the rainbow visible on the surface of the earth, even if it had never been visible to man previously. At all events, but very few of those who have discussed this subject will be able reasonably to "cast a stone" at this conjecture. Those who suppose mountains to have been sunk, ocean-beds to have been raised, or the rocky substance of the earth to have been dissolved, will scarcely demur to the possibility of a small change having taken place in the state of the atmosphere, or in the refrangible power of rain; especially when it is certain that great electrical changes must have accompanied such an event as the Deluge.

Whatever becomes of this conjecture, it is evident that traditions of the rainbow as a good omen were preserved by mankind for many ages, and that it was generally incorporated with their mythology.

Both Greeks and Romans deified this beautiful object under the title of Iris, or "the messenger of the gods." Homer alludes to the rainbow as a sign appointed by the son of Saturn. Thus::

"Splendour diffusing, as the various bow
Fix'd by Saturnian Jove in showery clouds
A sign to mortal men.'

And to the same effect Virgil speaks :

*CowPER'S Iliad, book xi.

"Those envied rites Saturnian Juno views,
And sends the goddess of the various bow."

The ancient Scandinavian mythology preserves the same allusions, and makes the rainbow a bridge which reaches from earth to heaven.*

It is equally curious, that Fohi, the great father of the Chinese nation, who is supposed by Shuckford and others to be the same with Noah, is said to have been the son of a daughter of heaven, who conceived him by having been encompassed with a rainbow.+

We come now to speak of an incident in the life of Noah which has been supposed to reflect great discredit on the patriarch, and which presents a subject of considerable difficulty to the historian of his age. The Mosaic narration of this event runs thus: "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 he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." (Gen. ix. 20-27.)

We have here a singular fact, and a remarkable prophecy. With respect to the event itself, we cannot but think that there is more in it than meets the eye. The subject is exceedingly obscure, and very delicate; and, as a consequence, forbids that extent of investigation which in other circumstances might not only be allowable, but absolutely requisite.

* "Edda," fable xv.

+"Asiatic Researches," vol. ii. p. 375.

The principal objections which we have felt to the commonly-received explanation of this text, are so well and so forcibly stated by a learned author, that, although we neither coincide with him in every sentiment, nor exactly approve the spirit of some of his remarks, we are induced to record his language :

"The common tale is that Ham, seeing his father in an indecorous attitude, was much amused, and laughed, and ran to tell his brothers of the fun. In which case he retained a good deal of the school-boy in his composition, considering that he was a hundred years old. If he laughed, and encouraged others to laugh, he committed a culpable act of disrespect, which might induce an offended father to curse the author of it rashly, and in his sudden indignation. But it would not induce God to inspire him with a prophecy, making no allusion to the act, and not even naming the offender, but relating to the whole scheme of religion. What has the descent of the Messiah from Shem to do with a man's laughing at a casual, a visible, and a totally unimportant occurrence? It is difficult to find, in all scripture, a misfortune of less moment, and more devoid of natural bad consequences, than that which befell Noah, or an offence of a more minute character, and more unworthy to be recorded, than that which vulgar misconstruction imputes to his son. Yet the momentous nature and consequences of both are apparent, first, in their being at all recorded in a history of such brevity; and, secondly, in their giving rise to predictions so general and important; not to mention the way in which they were commemorated in the Orphic Mysteries. The levity imputed to Ham is a trifle beside the offence of Reuben; and any body, by comparing the qualified malediction pronounced upon the latter, will more strongly feel how disproportionate is the magnitude, and how inapplicable the topics, of Noah's song to the pretended occasion of it. The Book of Genesis says not one word about any laughter or derision; and those who have made themselves busy in supplying the omissions of that brief