themselves, though still inconsistent with one another. And the result, to which this theory leads, is, that the Pentateuch is neither given by inspiration of God nor historically valid, but a rather mechanical compilation of a later age from heterogeneous materials, the discrepancies of which the compiler had not either the sense to perceive or the tact to eliminate.

Before we accept a conclusion fraught with such results, it is obvious that we are bound to be fully assured, both that the premises are in themselves true, and that they are able to bear all the weight that is laid on them. Hence three questions come before us for adjudication. 1. Of what nature must the difficulties of statement and style be to constrain us to the adoption of this theory? 2. What is the amount of the difficulties actually involved in the statements of the book, and what are the peculiarities of style that characterize its different parts? 3. Are these difficulties of statement and diversities of style of such a nature that they could only arise from a medley of the kind supposed? Do the former disturb the unity and early origin of the book, as well as its historical value and Divine authority? Do the latter enable us to assign its several parts to their respective authors?

The first of these is the question of principle. It involves the axioms or postulates on which the whole discussion turns. It is freely granted that the presence of plain contradictions or impossibilities is sufficient to overturn the historical credit or the early origin of a work. But they do not prove the diversity of authorship propounded in the above theory. It is acknowledged on all sides, that some one hand at length put the Pentateuch

together in its ultimate form. And if a final redactor did not see the presumed contradictions or did not regard them, neither might the original author. This part of the theory, therefore, has no support from the supposed existence of impossibilities.

The appearance, however, of discrepancies or difficulties that fall short of the contradictory or impossible cannot be allowed to have these effects. So far from seeming strange, they are to be expected in a work more than three thousand years old, containing a brief history of at least twenty-two centuries, and dealing, not in abstract or general assertions, but in concrete and definite statements. They rather confirm than weaken its claim to antiquity and genuineness, so long as they stand within the bounds of possibility. If there be any possible mode of reconciling the seemingly incompatible statements, the contradiction is removed. If a second mode can be pointed out, the contradiction is still more remote. For several solutions of an apparent contradiction are so far from counteracting that they sustain one another in repelling it to a vanishing distance. Not one of them may be the real missing link in the chain of facts, which by hypothesis, be it remembered, is unknown; but they all combine to show that the events in question may occur, not in one, but in a variety of ways.

It must, we think, be conceded, that all the diversities of style that have been or can be discovered, apart from contradictions or impossibilities, do not suffice to prove a work to be a medley from different authors. They cannot in the nature of things have the force of demonstration. Having the authors, we may make out characteristics of style. Having a foregone conclusion as to certain

passages, we may trace and tabulate their peculiarities. But all this may proceed from diversity of topic, mental state or design in the same author, and scarcely affords the colour of a presumption for the intermingling of pieces from different authors.

The full discussion of this question belongs to another place. But meanwhile we conclude, that, as contradictions may occur in the work of one author, and certain diversities in the use of words may appear in different pieces of the same writer, these phenomena are not sufficient of themselves to substantiate the whole theory under consideration. The existence, however, of absolute contradictions or impossibilities in its statements deprives a work of independent historical value or great antiquity of origin.

The second question regards the actual contents of the book. What are the difficulties it actually presents, and the diversities of style it exhibits? To ascertain these facts, we must examine the book, and determine as far as possible its real meaning. This is especially necessary in a work that has come down to us from a hoary antiquity, composed in a language that has not been spoken for eighteen centuries, and in a style which, though regular and systematic, is yet remarkably simple and primitive. We shall be doing great wrong to this venerable document, if we ascribe to it statements for which its own words, fairly interpreted, do not vouch. We cannot found the slightest inference on a passage which we do not understand, or affirm a single discrepancy, until we have made all reasonable inquiry whether it really exists, and what is its precise nature and amount.

The following work is a contribution towards this im

portant branch of the inquiry. It is an attempt to apply the laws of interpretation to the first book of the Pentateuch. The interest attached to the book of Genesis can hardly be exaggerated. It contains the records of the present condition of the earth and of the human race from its origin to the time of Moses. It answers the fundamental questions of theology, of physics, of ethics, and of philology. The difficulty of its exposition is proportioned to the antiquity of its origin and the loftiness of its theme. The present attempt to elucidate its meaning is neither perfect in its execution nor exhaustive in its results. But it makes some important advances in both these directions, as the author conceives; and therefore it has been submitted to public examination.

The work consists of a translation of the original, and a critical and exegetical commentary, the whole forming a full interpretation of the sacred text. With the exception of the first chapter, which is extremely literal, the translation is a revision of the authorised version. On a close comparison of this version with the original, we find everything to admire in the purity of the English, and little to amend in the faithfulness of the rendering. The emendations introduced aim at a nearer approach to the original meaning in some passages, and in others to the original mode of thought and expression. Alterations of the former kind are of essential moment; in making which the author has endeavoured to divest his mind of any questionable preconception that might warp his judgment. The minor changes consist chiefly in adhering more closely to the original order of words, in rendering the same word in Hebrew as often as possible by the same word in English, and in occasionally substituting a word

of English origin for one derived from the Latin. In expressing the sense of the original, the author has been greatly aided by the English version, and is fully persuaded that no independent version more adapted to the genius of the English language will ever be produced. Nevertheless, even this part of his work will, he hopes, be found to have thrown considerable light on the meaning of the book, that did not appear in the English

version.

The commentary is the complement of the translation. It is critical and exegetical: but so far as these qualities are distinct, much more attention has been paid to the latter. The formation of an improved text is not within the scope of the present work. The edition of Van der Hooght, the textus receptus of the Old Testament, is sufficient for all ordinary passages, and has been followed here. Peculiarities of form and syntax have been only sparingly discussed, as they are all noted and explained in our grammars and lexicons. The higher criticism, or the interpretation of the text, has been the chief study of the author, to which all other matters have been made subsidiary. It has been his endeavour to bring out the meaning of the original according to the philosophy of language, thought, and history.

For this purpose a few general principles of interpretation have been laid down, which, it is hoped, will meet with universal acceptance. These have been applied to elicit as far as possible the precise meaning of the sacred writer, the order of thought, and the order of time. A careful study of the method of composition has enabled him to throw much light on the logical order of the narrative, and the physical order of the events related.