in chapter second, gives us the main particulars, but with no intention of giving us the order in which the work was done; and with this view the differences need not be regarded as contradictions.

The Jehovah Document gives us an account of the temptation of Cain and Abel, and the genealogy of Cain; while the other document passes over these things in silence; but this difference, though important, does not involve a contradiction. The omission of the one does not prove the untruth of the other.

The Elohim Document, in chapter 5th, gives us the genealogy of Adam through his son Seth. The other does not give us this genealogy; but it has that of Adam through Cain. Neither is there a contradiction here. Both genealogies may be alike true.

Each document has a sufficiently full account of the Deluge; and both combined give us many apparent repetitions. The main difference of the two documents, in respect to the Deluge, is, that one makes all the clean beasts, as well as the unclean, to have been preserved by pairs; the other makes the clean beasts. to have been preserved by sevens, and the unclean, by pairs. And though this looks like a contradiction, I doubt whether we are authorized to call it such. It is certain that seven of every kind of clean animals, includes two of every kind; and the one writer, having the main purpose in his mind, which was to preserve enough to perpetuate the race, mentions only the two; while the other, more accurately, states the full number, seven; all over two, being intended, as we have suggested in another place, as food during the flood.

The Elohim Document contains some specific instructions to Noah, about the shedding of blood, the bow in the clouds, &c.; but the other document does not contradict these, though it does not mention them.

So on the other hand, the Jehovah Document gives us the genealogies of Shem, Ham and Japhet; while the other has only that of Shem; but it is worthy of

note that the genealogy of Shem is alike, on both lists, so far as they are intended to run parallel.

22. The above are all the important differences, between what are thought to have been at first two separate accounts of the creation, the deluge and other ancient events; and our remarks upon them have been offered on the presumption that the theory is true. But we are not yet convinced of its truth; and will, therefore, give a few reasons for our dissent.

One is, that those who adopt the theory, are not agreed how far to extend it. Some stop at Abraham, and others find distinct portions of these documents in all the books of Moses; and some find them in the later writings. Again, God and Lord are frequently interchanged in the various readings; and hence it does not certainly appear but that God should be the reading, in some of the instances, where Lord is found in the Jehovah Document, and Lord in the Elohim Document; and if this be supposed, the main feature, by which the two documents are distinguished, is done away.

Besides, the differences and repetitions may arise from the imperfection of the art of writing, in its infancy, and not from the combination of two documents. With this view, what is regarded as the second account of creation, is, more properly, a supplement, by the same writer, in which some things are added and enlarged upon, and others repeated from the first chapter, to show the connection between them. The creation of man, is mentioned in chapter first; it is repeated in chapter second, with some additions. So the crea tion of woman. So the creation of animals. The several statements, that make up the history of the deluge, are considerably mixed up, and sundry repetitions occur; but we detect here an unskilful hand, rather than separate and contradictory documents. And were it otherwise, one of the evidences of the antiquity and primitive origin of the book, would be wanting.

The difference between what are called the two documents, in regard to the number of clean beasts, preserved from the flood, admits of an explanation quite as rational without the theory as with it. We have already suggested the explanation; but if that explanation is not accepted, and a contradiction is contended for, it is quite as rational to suppose that one author should contradict himself, through some inadvertence, as that two authors should contradict each other. Noah is represented as going into the ark, no less than four different times, or rather in four different passages; but it will be observed that each additional statement combines some circumstance not mentioned before. The first passage is a prediction of the flood and the preservation of Noah and his family. The next commands Noah to go into the ark. The next passage relates the actual entrance into the ark, of Noah and his family. And the last passage connects this event, with the precise time when it occurred. See vi. 18-22; vii. 1-5; vii. 7-12; vii. 13-16. A similar reason may be given for other repetitions.

Another thing may be noticed in this connection. The Hebrew language has but two tenses, the Past and the Future; and the modes that belong to other languages, are but imperfectly represented here. Repetitions sometimes arise from these defects.

23. In connection with the "Composition of the Book of Genesis," we may mention a feature of the book that seems to belong as properly here as elsewhere. I refer to some passages that seem to have been added by a later writer than the original author of the book. They seem intended to explain some circumstance that might not otherwise be understood, or to connect some ancient practice with more modern times.

24. The language concerning the Sabbath, ii 3, is probably one of those passages. It is not necessary

in the place where we find it; but is a very natural addition after the Sabbath was instituted, as giving a reason for that institution. As it now stands, and viewed as a part of the original account, it implies that the Sabbath was instituted immediately after the creation of the world, which is hardly consistent with the silence regarding it all through the book of Genesis. Had it existed at first, some allusion to it would have been found among the Patriarchs; and as no such allusion is seen, we conclude that it did not exist; and that hence the passage now under consideration, is an addition as late at least as the time of Moses.

25. And the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land. xiii. 7. This is regarded by some as being added after the conquest of Canaan, when the Canaanites and Perizzites had been driven out; as if the author had said, "at that time these people were in the land; but they have since been expelled." But the passage does not require us to take this view. It was well known by the original author, that Canaan was some time to be the possession of the seed of Abraham, as this promise is often referred to; and the presumption was, that when this should be accomplished, the Canaanites would not occupy that country. As yet, however, the writer tells us, they were in that land.

26. All these were joined together in the Vale of Sid dim, which is the Salt Sea, xiv. 3. "Which is the Salt Sea" was added by a later hand, for the purpose of informing the reader that what was now the Salt Sea had once been the Vale of Siddim, where the battle of the kings was fought.

27. The same is the father of the Moabites, unto this day. . . . . The same is the father of the children of Am mon, unto this day. xix. 37, 38. These tribes were numerous and powerful, in the time of Moses, and it is he, probably, that here refers to their parentage.

28. Therefore, the name of the city is Beersheba, unto

this day. xxiii. 33. The passage contains no intimation, when it was written, as the place referred to, retained that name for many centuries.

29. Therefore, the children of Israel eat not the sinew that shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day, xxxii. 32. This is an early gloss, as the custom alluded to, does not seem to have existed, even as late as the time of Moses. At least we know of no allusion

to it.

30. And these are of Edom, before there of Israel, xxxvi. 31. to be made till the

the kings that reigned over the land reigned any king over the children This remark would not be likely time when kings reigned over Israel; and it must therefore be referred to the time of the kings.

31. And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt, unto this day, xlvii. 26. This law probably existed in Egypt for a long period after the time of Joseph; and at any period during its existence, this gloss might have been made.

SECTION V.-INSPIRATION.

32. If the question were here propounded: What reason have we for supposing that any of the recorded statements of the book of Genesis, were dictated, in any special manner, by the Divine Spirit, we should insist, in the first place, upon a strong antecedent probability that such was the case. There was a time when men began to exist in the world. This is a selfevident proposition. That man is the product of a superior Power and Intelligence is scarcely less selfevident.

And the existence conferred on man at first, must have been preserved by some special aid. No other supposition is admissible. The aid we now have from our parents and friends, in the infancy of life, was not furnished, and could not be, from the nature of the