order then laid down, which we call nature, the continuation of the world might be equally wonderful as at its creation; and if at any time something beyond the ordinary supplies of nature were required, either by the world generally, or any part thereof, it might at once be found without any other previous cause, except the instantaneous will of the Creator." Thus the general and constant order of universal government would be under the control of a better nature, or of a special and individual providence, such as protected the Israelites during their forty years' wanderings in the desert, where their wants were supplied in a supernatural manner; as it is said: "Your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and your feet are not swelled: Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink." (Deut. xxix. 5, 6.) When they hungered, their food rained down from heaven; when they thirsted, their drink sprung from out of the naked rock the cloud of glory shaded them against the noontide heat of the burning desert: And thus a special providence watched over and supplied their wants. That which was possible to the Deity during a certain space of time and towards a particular people, it is equally in his power to bestow at all times, and on all the nations of the earth. It is, therefore, not the want of power which induces the Deity to withhold the continual exercise of this miraculous providence; but it is the fact, that such exercise would put an end to merit and demerit, by depriving man's free-will of its scope and activity, and, consequently, precluding him from deserving either the reward or the punishment of a future state; which alone is, to man, 'the real end and aim of creation. If this supernatural supply were accidental, man would fall into the snares of Atheism; for he would no longer see the relation between cause and effect, and would therefore eventually deny the existence of the great First Cause. Should, on the contrary, a special providence watch over the wants of every individual, be he righteous or wicked, God-fearing or not, so that each, without any distinction, would

be supplied with whatever he wants, then there would be no incentive to the practice of piety and virtue, as this universal equality would lead men to suppose, either that the Deity makes no difference between the good and the bad; or that He comprises all mankind in one general glance; and this belief would induce them to give an unbridled play to their evil passions, as they would "It is useless to serve God; say, what avails it to observe his statutes? " Thus the Prophet said: "O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our hearts against thy fear?" (Isaiah lxiii. 17.) But if the special and miraculous providence of God be confined to the righteous only, so that their wants are supernaturally supplied; whilst his countenance is altogether withdrawn from the wicked; the forced consequence would be, that all would be righteous, but without any merit, as such righteousness would flow from the desire to enjoy the supplies and happiness that the wicked are deprived of. Thus in every case, the rewards of the righteous and the punishments of the wicked would cease, and man would be as the Prophet says, "Thou hast made men like the fishes of the sea, like reptiles that have no ruler." (Habak. i. 14.) Nor would human reason then be employed in the effort to search into the existence of the Deity and to contemplate his perfections, by gradually ascending in the scale of creation until the mind rests on Him the great First Cause; which contemplation and preparation enlighten the eye of the mentally blind, and bestow on us the supreme happiness of which, in our present state, we are capable.

But as the creation of the world was the result of natural gradation, founded on the ten separate commands of God, and in a succession of days, denoting the previous and the subsequent; and as all his works have respectively received the matter and form appropriate to their nature, so that one may result from another, and be alike cause and effect; this alone shows the justice of punishment to evil-doers, who perceive the wondrous order of nature

laid down by these ten sayings of the Deity, and the graduated scale of creation; but nevertheless incline not] their hearts to contemplate the same, and to confess his Godhead, although the gates of contemplation were most widely opened to them, as it is said, "Who knows not by all this that the hand of the Lord has done it?" (Job xii. 9.) And from the circumstance of the course of nature being laid down and fixed, man should be impressed with the reflection, that, although sometimes good is enjoyed without merit, or evil endured without guilt, such apparent incongruity is not to be attributed to the Deity, but to the ordinary results of the course of nature. Such is the reasoning of the wise Solomon, of blessed memory, when he says, "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, because they fear before Him. But it shall not be well with the wicked; neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow, because he feareth not God." (Ecclesiastes viii. 13.) His meaning is, that when the wicked prospers, and his punishment does not speedily visit him, men may think, that his protracted welfare is the result of his wickedness; and therefore they too set their hearts on doing the like evil, in order that the like prosperity may fall to their share. Solomon, therefore, cautions mankind that such reasoning is erroneous; that though the evil-doer may escape his punishment for a time, either through extreme caution, or because his sins have not yet acquired their full measure, so as to take place of the natural causes which, till then, occasioned and preserved his prosperity, nevertheless his welfare is by no means the consequence or recompence of his evil deeds. But with the righteous the case is different: Their prosperity is not merely owing to the natural course of events, but is likewise granted to them, and remains with them, because they fear the Lord;

whilst, though the wicked may enjoy the prosperity which accidentally falls to his lot, it is never bestowed on him, and remains not with him after its accidental cause has ceased, because he fears not the Lord. Accordingly the wicked who prosper, and do not reflect that repeated sins may fill the measure of their transgressions, until it takes place of the natural causes, which, till then, had occasioned and preserved their prosperity, are doubly culpable, because they pervert that order of creation which the ten sayings of the Deity laid down; and which, though they could perceive, they inclined not their hearts to observe. But the righteous, whose contemplations ascend up the scale of creation through all its degrees, until they confess and receive the Deity, obtain the reward due to their piety, in abstaining from tempoporal and imaginary advantages and enjoyments, although they know that their transgressions might not be visited with immediate punishment, [and that the ordinary course of nature may, for a time, extend its protection to them, as it does to the sinner. They, however, rely not on this precarious impunity, but have the fear of their Creator before their eyes, and obedience to His laws in their heart. If they suffer, and miɛfortunes befall them, they know that their adversity is not decreed as a punishment, but that it results from the ordinary course of their nature; and that the measure of their merits is not sufficiently full to take the place of the natural causes of their adversity. Thus is demonstrated the necessity of the gradual progress of creation, and the consequent order of nature.

The five verses in the first chapter of Genesis, on which, hitherto, we have commented, give rise to the following questions, and their subjoined answers.

1. Why was light created before the existence of any beings that stood in need of it, as the Holy One (blessed be HE!) could not Himself require its use?

2. Why is not the expression, "And it was so," applied to the creation of light, as it is to all the other works of creation?

3. Why does Holy Writ first say, "God saw the light that it was good," and afterwards, "God divided the light from the darkness?" Ought not this order to have been inverted, and the division have preceded the expression of the Divine approbation?

4. Why says Holy Writ, "It was evening, it was morning, one day?" Ought not this order to have been inverted, as the sun was not yet created, and evening succeeds its setting?

66

5. How can the expression, Evening and morning, one day," be at all used before the creation of the sun, as night and day are caused by its light, and no computation of time could take place before its existence?

6. Why is the expression here, "One day,"* and not "the first day," as is said of the second, third, and succeeding days?

The answers to these questions are as follow

To the first.-There are two opinions respecting light: one, that it is spiritual; and the other, that it is physical. According to the first opinion, this light is superior to all the rest of creation, not only in quality, but likewise in time, as from it all other beings emanated. According to the second opinion, the creation of light properly takes place of all other works, being a decided creation of something out of nothing; as darkness is but the negation or absence of light; and, as darkness ruled the night, light was, according to the intention of the Creator, required to rule the succeeding portion, day.

To the second.-According to the opinion, that this light is spiritual, its terrestrial office was of short duration, and could not, therefore, be properly expressed by the words,

,"and it was so," as these denote it was confirmed and remained. According to the opinion that light is physical, the words, "It was

*The rendering of the authorized version, "The evening and the morning were the first day," does not correctly correspond

so," can only be applied to the formation of the matter created on the first day, but cannot be applied to the positive creation out of nothing.

To the third.-The separation between light and shade or darkness was instantaneous, and followed the words, "Let there be light." The immediate illumination which pervaded the universe was good; but, in order to mark the distinction between night and day, light was confined to one side of the globe, whilst shade prevailed on the other; and as these never join, but always alternate, they are called "divided."

To the fourth.-As it was in the plan of the Creator, that the space of time He designated should be equal to the diurnal evolution, His wisdom assigned to darkness the portion subsequently called night; and to light that subsequently called day: And evening is mentioned first because darkness preceded the creation of light.

To the fifth.-The preceding answer likewise applies to this question; for, although the computation of time commenced with the creation of the sun, the Divine wisdom caused that uniformity to be observed which subsequently limited the duration of day and night to twenty-four hours."

To the sixth.-Commentators say the word first can only be used where there is a second to succeed; but as the second day was not yet in existence, first could not be applied to its predecessor. This, however, does not seem to be a satisfactory answer, as there is no future to the Deity. But the words, "One day," are used, in order to express that the computation of time was that of

,ראשון

96

R. ELIEZER saith, "Repent one day before thy death." His disciples asked of him, "How can any man know the day of his death?" His answer was, "Be penitent to-day, as to-morrow thou mayest die; and if thou observe this, thy whole life will be such that when the day of reckoning cometh, thou wilt be prepared." And thus Solomon said in his Wisdom, "Let thy raiment at all times be pure and white, nor let ointment be wanting on thy head." (Eccles. ix.8.) R. Jochanan ben Sachai explained this saying of Solomon in a parable:-A king invited his servants to a feast, but did not name any precise time for their attendance. Those among them who were provident dressed and ornamented themselves, and stood in waiting at the palace gate: "Because," said they, "the king's palace is not deficient of means for the speedy preparation of a feast." But those who were foolish said, "Every feast requires much preparation." They consequently went about their ordinary occupations. Suddenly the summons was given to appear before the king. The provident were ushered in, and took their appointed places; but when the silly entered into the royal presence, their garments were soiled, as they had no time to get properly arrayed. The king rejoiced to see the former, and said, "Ye that are fit to sit at my table, partake of my feast." But he reproached the latter, saying, "Ye that presume to come into my presence, all soiled and unadorned, ye may stand and look on." The son-in-law of R. Meir, and in his name, added: "How happy would the latter have been, were they at all admitted to the feast, though but in the servile capacity of attendants! But it is not so. Both are invited; but, whilst the former feast in abundance, the latter starve in penury; as it is written Behold, my servants shall

:

eat, but ye shall be hungry: Behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty Behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed: Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit.'" (Isaiah lxv. 13, 14.)

The moral which this parable inculcates,-conveyed as it is in that simple unassuming style in which the Rabbies generally delivered their instruction, and which, from its very want of pretension, speaks more directly to the heart than any fine figures of speech and rhetorical flowers possibly can do,-demands our attention on account of the important diversity of opinion expressed by R. Jochanan ben Sachai and R. Meir. The former says, that, unless man properly prepares himself here, by the practice of virtue, piety, and penitence, (which he calls, "being dressed, ornamented, and in waiting at the palace gate,") he is not capable of enjoying the rewards of a BLISSFUL HEREAFTER; and that the punishment of his criminal negligence consists in that very incapacity, and in the shame and remorse which assail him when he beholds the bliss of which others enjoy a fulness, but from the participation of which he is excluded. According to this opinion, the punishment of the impenitent would be merely negative, and would consist only of the incapacity to enjoy, and consequent exclusion from the rewards of the blessed. R. Meir, however, goes further, and tells us, that, as the reward is positive, the punishment is not less so: And he supports his opinion by a quotation so strong, so expressive, and so apposite, that we fear to weaken the impression which it cannot fail to make on every reflecting mind, by any attempt, on our part, at addition or explanation.