■». >T*%. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I '- IM 1 2.5 0^ 1^ IIIII22 . xposcre are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as man\y frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent l^tre filmte A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich6, 11 est film* A pertir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche it droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. 1 2 3 . _ 2 3 4 5 6 •«0f ol< Tkjr b«D< ]\V.^ 'v- '^f^^ry'-.'^^^'V.^ ^^..-if^^-mfr ^-^^-'r ■'-"■r-ir-^- -....^^.^| vji/^^^m^w BIBLICAL EXPOSITOR AXD PEOPLE'S COMMENTARY. HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS. BT JACOB M. HIRSCHFELDER, LaonrBXK nr Obikmtal Litkratukk, Univebsitt (Tolligk, Tobomto. Author or " RiPLT TO Bishop CoLENao," "Essay on the Spirit and Chakao- TBBisncs or Hebrew Poetry," "Trbatisb ov the Ihmobtauty ot the Soul," " Critioai. Lbotubes on Qbmbsis I.," ka. VOL. XL •* Of old hut Thou Ikid the fonndktion of the earth ; and the heaTena or* the work of Tky haBdi.'*>-PaAui oil. 2fi. if/ TORONTO: ROWSELL & HUTCHISON. 188S. I' I j'niumpfii. wmm^ Emtkbbd according to Act of Parliament of CanMla, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, by Jacob Mair Hibschfkldkb, in the Ot&ce of the Minister of Agriculture. lOKOXTO , niNTBD BT Br/WSH.L AMD BOTCHirOR. K»«(S«^.' :-»Iff,»1?If»- i ■i INTRODUCTION. The original names of the five books of Mosed are merely derived from the principal word of the first verse of each booK. Thus, the first book is called tl^^Mia {Bereshith), i. «., in the beginning, which is the first word of the book. When the Greek version was executed, the translators gave names to the books expressive of the chief event recorded in each book. Thus they called the first book Genesis, i. e., generation or production. The second book they named Exodus, i. e., depar- ture, the principal event related in the book being the departure of the Israelites from Egypt The third book they named Leviticus, as it contains chiefly the laws relating to the priests and Levites. The fourth book they called ApiOfioi {Arimmoi), and in the Vulgate it bears the name Numehi, which is a literal translation of the Greek word, and hence the name Numbers in our version. It is so called in reference to the numbering of the children of Israel as related in chapters i., ii., iii., and xxvi. The fifth book they called Deuteronomion, i. e., tlie second law, because it contains a repetition of the laws given to Moses, with the exception to what pertains to the priest- hood ; and hence the name Deuteronomy in our version. The book of Genesis, although only containing fifty chapters, yet comprises the history ranging over 2,369 vears, according to the common computation, or 3,6 IM years according to the Septuagint, which is also adopted by Bishop Hales, who, how- ever, stands alone in this respect. Some writers suppose that Moses wrote the book in the land of Midian, when he tended the flocks of his father-in-law in the wilderness ; but it is far more likely that it was not written until after the promulgation of (he law in the wilderness; this is, however, a matter of no consequence. The Mosaic authorship and inspiration of the book of Genesis has never been doubted by the imcient Jews. It was by them received with a full conviction of its truth, on the authority of that inspiration under which the sacred historian was known to act. Indeed, the book itself bears incontrovertible evidence of beiujg written under inspiration — as we shall hereafter point out — since we find things recorded in it about the nature of which Moses must at that time have been perfectly ignorant, and could not possibly have obtained the information otherwise than by inspiration. The sacred authority of the book is also iv. INTRODUCTION. established by its being so frequent./ cited in the New Testa- ment. See Matt. xxiv. 37. 38 ; Luke i. 55 ; xvii. 28, 20, 32 ; Acts vii. 2-lG; Rom. iv. 1-3; Gal iii. 8; James ii. 28. On account of the sacredness and dignity of the subject, and the seriou.s attention which it demnnds, the reading of Ihe beginning of Genesis, among the ancient Jews, wns not allowed until they had attained tlic sacerdotal age of thii-ty years. The historical portions of tne book bear the stamp of truth- fulness by the manner they are related. The events aic described as they occurred, and the characters as they appeared, there is not the slightest desire evinced to shield from olamo, or to conceal any wrong doing. Whether we view the book of Genesis from a religious point of view, or from a secular stand point, language fails in adequately describing the importance of the information it contains. Here we leai*n the fundamental truth that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it contains, that — "The heavens declart' the glory of God, And the firmament show for',h the works of his hands." Psalms xix. 2 ; Faig. Vera. v. 1. Here we learn further, that man is not the outcome of a long and gi-adual development from an inferior creature, but a creature created in the image of his Maker, possessing an immortal soul ; and that the human race, irrespective of colour, sprang fram one primitive pair, and are all alike protected and guided by the care of a Heavenly Father. Here too, ia furnished the eU important information, how sin and the consequent evils it entailed upon the human race, entered into the world. The sacred narrative, after having given these fundamenttil truths, which, form the basis of all Scriptural doctrine, describes the multiplication of mankind, the progres.s. of impiety, the preservation of Noah and his family from amidst the general destruction by the flood. The sacred narrative next proceeds to give a brief, but authentic record of the descent, the difl'usion, and progress of the various nations that inhabit the earth. It furnishes, also, the important information of the confusion of tongues, which, although it may not altogether solve the difficult problem as to the origin of the many diiferent languages now spoken upon the globe, yet, it will, at least, afford a key to it which no human being, or ingenuity could ever have discovered. The Biblical naiTative next gives an account of the solemn covenant made with Abitiham, which may be regarded as the beginning of the theoci'ocy, and also records the most important events in the lives of the Patriarchs, especially those that were best calcu- lated to illustrate the dealings of God with man and His ■I INTRODUCTION. V. iudgments, and concludes with . the beautiful and interesting history of Joseph, and the settlement of the Israelites in Egypt. Thus we have in the book of Genesis a concise, but clear history of the first ases of the human family, which profane writeiv* would never nave been able to rescue from the shades of antiquity. A writer has well said that " the views set forth in the book of Genesis have not only become the foundation of the culture of the Hebrews, but, through them, of a large portion of mankind." Most of the statements made in Genesis have, however, not been wllowed to go unchallenged. Indeed, modern criticism has cho.sen the book as the battle- field upon which the warfare against the authenticity of the Pentateuch is chiefly to be carried on. Any one acquainted with modern Biblical literature must know tnat the battle has been severe, and is by no means yet ended. The miraculous events are held to set forth impossibilities, whilst many of the histoiical statements are pronounced to be unreliable. The use of the different names of the Deity in certain portions of the book are laid hold of to prove that those portions were written by different authors, and at long intervals between them. It is of no use evading the objections of modern critics, they must be met in a fair and unbiased manner. Most, if not all Biblical critics belonging to the rationalistic school are eminent scholars, and, no doubt, sincerely believe to be correct in their conclusions. No one either can, for a moment, charge them with writing their commentaries for mercenary purposes, they are, evidently, actuated by a higher motive, namely: a love for the subject. I have, therefore, always been CJireful in controverting any argument, never to use hai'sh, much less, offensive language, like some writers have done. It will be my earnest endeavour, in the following pages, to care- fully examine all the objections urged by modern critics against various portions of Genesis, and to controvert them by sound arguments and common sense reasoning, and leave the intelli- gent and unbiased reader to judge whether I have been successful in my endeavours. Should I, in the opinion of some of my readers, not have entirely succeeded in clearing up all the difficulties which necessarily beset subjects so profound, and of such a mysterious nature as ax^ contained in Genesis, I trust they will ascribe it rather to my inability to do so, and not to the sa-fired narrative as containing anything adverse to the teaching of the natural sciences or to the dictates of reason. Those of my leaders who are not acquainted with Hebrew, will naturally feel anxious to know whether the 7iew render- ings given in the " Revised Version" are an improvement upon the Authorized Version. It is, therefore, my intention, as soon as that version is published, to notice all the changes that have Tl. mTRODUCTION. beon made, and to express my opinion whether in approval or otherwise, stating, at the same time, my reaion for favouring one rendering in preference to the other. I may repeat here the statement already made in the intro- duction, that vhe translation is directly made from the Hebrew, but I have carefully avoided deviatm^ from the Authorized Version, except where I thought it absolutely necessary. Such portions as are correctly translated, and do not call for any explanation are passed over. In the present advanced state of Biblical criticism, it is impos- sible to write a satisfactory commentary without frequently quoting the original. The reader will, however, find the Hebrew words in no way to interfere with the reading, as they are invariably expressea in Engli.sh character. Those of my renders, who are not acquainted with the Hebrew, will, in some cases, in order to understand the arguments, have to pay par- ticular attention to the Hebrew words expressed in English. Thin is especially the case where the dei'ivation of words are give^x. I have always made it a practice to make the Bible as much as possible its own interpreter, that is to say, wherever the sense of a phrase, or the meaning of a word is doubtful, to endeavour to find the true sense or meaning in other places, where the same phrase or word occurs. Many of the mistrans- lations in the Authorized Version would have been avoided had the translators strictly adhered to this practice. In the Old Testament there are many words which occur only once, in all such cases I have always resorted to the cognate languages or the Rabbinical writings, in order to trace the true import. I have spared no labour to render the work in every respect both Uiseful and interesting ; but how far I may have succeeded in these endeavours, remains for the reader to decide. In a work of this kind, it can hardly be hoped to give general satisfaction; what may please one, may displease another. Pope has justly said, in his " Essay on Criticism," — " Tia with oar judgments as oni watches ; none Go jost alike, yet each believes his own." This is quite true, judgments once formed are not always so easily relinquished, preconceived opinions become often so deeply rootc^l that they are with difficulty eittdicated; still, when facts prove these to be wrong, there is no other alterna- tive than to ofier them on the shrine of truth. But whatever the public verdict regarding the work may be, I have at least the satisfaction of knowing, that my whole endeavours have been to perform the by no means easy task to thie best of my abilities, and with the strictest impartiality. J. M. H. COMMENTARY. I " O'er the wide nnirene no atom etir'd. Silence and gloom in awfnl ({randear reign. The world was theira : —One limitleaa domain, Till earth'a Oreat Builder gave the forming word,— Tro' bonndleaa ohaoa waa the mandate heard, — Creation anapt ita adamantine chain, And aprantf mto bein^. On the new bom plain Alternate changes Deity conferred." QENESIS I. 1. " In tfte beginning God created the heaven and the earth" The sacred writer begins his narrative by setting forth the igrand fundamental truth, that "Qod in the beginning," or more literally rendered "in beginning," created the whole uni- t^'ae; for this is in reality the meaning of the expression "heaven and earth" according to the Hebrew idiom, and in this sense it is used by the other sacred writers throughout the Old Testament. Thus Melchizedek in blessing Abram said : "Blessed be Abram of the most High Qod, possessor of heaven and earth;" i. «., of the whole universe. (Gen. xiv. 19). This at once affords a conclusive argument against the allega- tion made by some modem writers that "Moses, in using the expression in question, betrays an ignorance which is not con- stonant with that of an inspired writer, inasmuch as he mentions the earth separately, whilst in reality it forms a ODmponent part of the planetaiy system, and, therefore, is already included in the term heaven." The sacred writer, however, made use of the only mode of expression that the Hebrew language afforded, had he invented a term for it, no one would have undei stood him. Moses combats here also the extiuvagant notions that prevailed amongst the ancient pagans iu regard to the origin of the world, and especially the widaly spread theory among the ancient sages of the eteimity of heaven and earth. That Moses must have received the information by Divine inspiration is self-evident, since the human mind could not possiblv have conceived such an idea, it being altogether oeyond the grasp of the human understanding to conceive how anything could be created out of nothing. It declares quite the opposite to what was held by the most learned heathen philoeophers, who laid down the doctrine, "ex nihilo nihil fit** PBUPLJs 00MMB2CTABY. i. e., "out of Twthing — nothing eornes." If, then, it must he admitted, that the Suit vene waa written under Divine inspiration, it follows that the remaining |K)rtion of the narra- tive must have likewise been so written, since it equally speaks of creations out of nothing. The Uuiguage, too, which MoHes employs, stamps his record with the Liviue signet, "and God said," "and Ood saw," "and God called," are expressions which would not have been employed by the holy and meek lawgiver > precipitate. In the day time they meet with darkness (therefore fmitleM,) And grope at noonday as in the d»rknCTi>" Jobv. 13, 14. Some writers, and among them Professor Lewis, of Union Oollege, in his work entitled " The Six Days of Creation, or the Scriptural Cosmology," have argued that the verb " j^^a '' (hara) "created" employed in the tirst ver.se,does not necessarily denote to create out of nothing, since it is also used in the sense to heiv, to cut down, as Josh. xvii. 15 and to form as Ezek. xxi. 24 (Eng. vers. 19). This is no doubt quite true; but Moses had to * These will be more folly ex^ained herMftsr. PBOPLK'B CX)1IMICNTAKT. or use mome word which would sonvey the meaninf^ to crenle mil of nothing ; Mid I maintain, that thiH is the only word he could Cibly have employed, aa there is no other in the Hebrew ^iiage which would have afforded that sense. Why did theMe nuthors not point out what verb the sacred writer could have used which would have been more suitaVile ? It is, how- ever, ({.lite evident, that the argument is nut forward without any regard to the usage of the verb in Scripture. The verb 8^13 ('•<«'"«0 in the primary conjugation Kal, is only employed in the sense to create, and only in reference to Divine creation. Hence this verb is always employed when Qo» » « a it tends to harmonize the Mosaic account without imposing forced constructions on the very plain language of the sacred writer — as will become more and more apparent as we proceed with the explanation of the chapter — we may next inquire what science has levealed to inscribe on the first carte blanche of which that verse merely forms " a superacription." Now it is an admitted fact by all naturalists, that " the vast geological scale divides itself into three great parts, and that in each part or master division we find a type of life so unlike that of others that even an unpractised eye can detect the difference." Or, as the great French naturalist, M. D'Orbigny, has described it, 'twenty-nine creations separated one fiom another by catastrophes which have swept away the species existing at the time, so that not a single species survived the last catastrophe which ended the tertiary period." The reader will thus perceive, there is nothing, either in the vegetable or animal kingdom which, in any way, connects the tertiary period with the fourth period, which I shall call the human peinod, as being preeminently distinguished from the preceding ones by the creation of the human family. As every successive period had its peculiar types of beings, hence it follows that there must have been, from time to time, new creations. But it will probably be asked, is that Scrip- tural ? The question is best answered with the words of Christ, who himself declared, " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." (St. John v. 17.) There is no inactivity on the part of God, for as the Psalmist says : " Behold, He slumbers not, and He sleepethnot,* i ; The Keeper of Israel." ■,- ; .. (Ps. cxxi. 4.) Who can tell what new creations may not daily, hourly, nay momentarily, take place in the waters, upon the ground, or in space ? We have already seen that new planets spring into existence, whilst others disap[)ear from the astronomical chart. And the reader will, no doubt, remember the stinging sarcasm with which Keppler, one of the greatest astronomers of all ages, has treated the Epicurian theory as to the chance origin of these netu planets. (See Introd. p. Ixxxiii.) If, then, it must be admitted that new creations must have taken place from time to time, for there is no other rational mode of accounting for the origin of the new types in the different geological periods, there can no longer be any objec- tion on that score of applying Gen. 1 to the creation of the living things only which now inhabit our globe. • The verbs are in the fut-^e which is always used to express a custom, prac- tice, or continued action. .12 people's commbntabt. 2. " And th6 nbi^ !S<"''fl3D (nesie Elohini) lit. a prince of God, i. e., "a mighty prince." Gen. xxiii, 8). b?* '^Tlfi^ (arae El) lit. tke cedars of God, i. e. "the finest cedars." (Psalm Ixxx. 11 ; Eng. vers. v. 10). Jiin"' "'SJ i^^^^ Jehovah) lit. the trees of Jehovah, i. e., "the finest trees." (Ps. civ. 16). The word nil {rudch) too, denotes both wind and spirit; so that the reader will perceive that the rendering "a mighty wind" is not an arbitrary translation. But the phrase in question is never usfcd idiomatioilly in Scripture to denote a great or strong * See explanation given in the Introduction, p. xlix. people's comhentabt. 1- wind, in that case the adjective grettt is always employed, as- Job i. 19; Jonah i. 4. Besides the rendering mighty wind would be altogether unsuitable with the verb tlfi)n")?a (mcjvt chepheth) which denotes a gentle hovering or brooding over,, such as is made by birds whilst hatching their eggs, or foster- ing their young, as Deut. xxxii. 11, where God is represented as lovingly watching over Israel's welfar' "as an eagle flutter- eth over her young." The true meani ^ of the passage, no doubt is, that the quickening Spirit of God brooded over the waters, to quicken the lifeless mass by His creative Spirit, which is the principle of all life. Hence the Psalmist says, 'By the word of Jehovah the heavens were made; and by the breath of His mouth all their host." (Psalm xxxiii. 6). Milton has beautifully paraphrased the passage in question : * ♦ ♦ •• Thou from the first Wast present, and with mighty wing, outspread. Dove like, eatst brooding on the vast abyss, And madest it pregnant. " * • • The celebrated Rabbi Nachmane, in his Hebrew Commentary,, entitled "Bereshith Rabba," interprets the phrase "this is the spirit of the King Messiah." There is no doubt that in most of the eastern legends regard- ing the origin of the world, there are indications that some portions have been derived from the Mosaic account, although in a more or less disguised form. This is especially the case in the Hindoo cosmogony, according to which the oHginal soul of the universe said, "I will create worlds," therefore the water was called into existence, into which the Spirit deposited a. germ which developed itself into an egg of beautiful lustre, and in this egg the supreme being or Brahman created him- self; the waters were called (Nara) Spirit of God, and as they were the first place where he had moved, he was designated (Narayana) moving on the tvatera. (Asiatic Researches, i. 244.)' 3. " And God said, Let there be light : and there teas light." With these words the work of the six days of creation com- menced, for it will be seen by glancing over the chapter, that the beginning of each days creation is likewise distinctly marked by the words: " And God said,"* that is, Go " " Declare, if thou hast understanding, Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest ? Or who hath stretched out the line upon it ? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened ? "'■■" Or who laid the comer-stone thereof ? ' • ; : ■'l.-'f' Wlien the morning stars sant; together. And all the sons ol God shouted for joy ? " (Job xxxviii., 4-7). This passage clearly proves that the stellar system was not created on the fourth day of the Mosaic account of the * The somewhat peculiar expression : " I made (or appointed) thee a god to Pharaoh," has proved not a little preplexing to the commentators. Oukelos, in his Chaldee version, renders it " a master to Pharaoh." Peeudo Jonathan, in his Chaldee version, translates " formidable as if thou wert his God." The oe'ebrated commentator, Eben Ezra, rendered "an Angel to Pharaoh," by which he of course means an authorized messenger of God. Rashi, a very favourite Hebrew commentator, paraphrased the pas9.ige, "a superior ^nd master, authorized to punish him with plagues and afflictions. " The passage evidently belongs to that class o;' construction termed comtrtictio prvegtiann, that is, where the language employed implies more than is actually people's commentary. S5 creation, but that they ah*eady existed when God laid the foundation of the earth. There is no getting over this passage, tl>e language is too plain, and it must oe remembered also, that tlie words are not the words of Job or of his three friends, but of God Himself. It may, perhaps, be argued, that in the fourth commandment it is distinctly stated, that "in six days the L D made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." (Fxod. xx. 11). Preciseh' so n"C3? («.sa) ordered or fashioned, b, it does not S'l^y 15^13 (hara) created, hn it does in Gen. i. 1, which latter verb would no doubt have been employed by the sacred writer if the primary creation of the universe were referred to. As the fourth commandment depends on Genesis i., hence it must be explained by that chapter, for there is evidently only so much of the creative work referred to in the commandment as relates directly to the institution of the Sabbath, namely, in Hix da J/8 God perfected Ida creative work, as related in chai)ter i. from verse three to the end of the chapter, "and rested on the seventh the second narrative of creation, in which no distinction is made, the movnig people's commentary. J7 Gen. birds are said to have been formed out of the gi'ound. ii. 19." (Essaj'^s and Reviews, p. 248.) The Rev. Mr. Goodwin evidently did not consult the orignal — it is to be supposed that he at least had some knowled^^e of Hebrew, or he would not have presumed to criticize the Mosaic account in the way he has done — or he would have at once perceived that the discrepancy altogether arose from not having closely enough adhered to the Hebrew text. On re'ierring to the Hebrew Bible it will be seen that the word n^P (cJiaiyah), " living," has the pause accent athrach, which is equal to our colon, and the word that is not in the original. Let, now, the reader turn back to my rendering of the vei'se, and he will find that the foivla were not brought forth by the waters, but merely commanded to fly above the earth. The sacred writer here merely alludes to the creation of the fowl and the element assigned to them in which they were to move, without stating how they were created ; which information is given in ch. ii. 19. The same is precisely the case with the creation of man, Avhich, in ch. i. 26, 27, is merely spoken of as having taken place. A fuller account is recorded in ch. ii. 7. 21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moveth, with which the waters sioarm, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind : and God saw t/iat it was good. This verse gives merely a recapitulation of what is stated in tlie preceding verse, just as verses 17 and 18 form a recapitula- tion of verses 14, 15, 16. The rendering, " great whales," given in the English version, is too restricted ; the Hebrew term D3''Dn (tanninim) literally means large stretched out animals, hence all kinds of sea monsters. In later times, the term was even applied to large land animals, and in some instances the desert is assigned as their place of habitation. In some passages the word is rendered in the English version by " dragon." Moses, evidently used the word here in the sense of sea monsters, and mentions them particularly to show that they were included in the term VTQJ (shcrets) " moving creatures" employed in the preceding verse. I may here remark that the sacred writers in general have frequently to labour under great difficulties in expressing certain objects, owing to the paucity of specific names in the Hebrew language. In such cases they select such terms as they consider would best convey their ideas, and not un- frequently, they are guided in their use of words by the derivation. It is, therefore, highly necessary for the student of the Bible to pay particular attention in doubtful cases both to derivation and context. From what htis been said above, we may sum up the work 18 people's commentary. HI of the fifth clay's cveatfon to have comprehended all inhabitants of the waters, the fowl of the air, including winged insects. 24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kiiul, cattle^ and reptiles, and beasts of tlte earth after their kind : and it vxis so. As the watei's were made to teem with living creatures, and the air filled with winged birds and insects on the fifth day, it remained now onlv to furnish the land with its inhabitants to complete the work of creation. Hence, on the sixth day, at the fiat of Jehovah, the eai'th brought forth all kinds of living land animals by which, however, must not be understood that any creative power was delegated to the earth, no more than when it is said, verse 20, " Let the waters swarm with moving creatures," &c., the language in both cases simply implies that the creatures were to begin to exist. Hence the sacred writer adds, verse 25, " And God made the beasts of the earth," &c., to show that God created them. To be more precise, Moses specifies these under three classes, namely, n)3n3 (bchemah), a term which is generally applied to domestic animals, though in later times its meaning became gradually extended so as sometimes to include also all cjrass- fiitivtj quadrupeds, whether tame or wild. The second class is called tD73"l {yemes), which includes the smaller land animals which move either without feet or with feet which are so small that they are scarcely percejitible ; insects, reptiles, worms. The inoviny things spoken of, in verse 21, as being created on the fifth day, are inhabitants of the water, and hence it is dis- tinctly stated, " which the waters brought forth abundantly," whilst the movl)ig things created on the sixth day are in verse 2G particularl}' specified as " moving things that move upon the earth," the sacred writer was particulaily careful that the two .should not be confounded with one another. The third cla.ss is denoted by the term yij^ in^n {chayetho erets) literally beasts of the earth, that is, such as roam freely about upon the f.ice of the earth, which we genei'ally call toild beasts. I may mention here that the term n^H (c/taiya/t) only means a living animal according to its derivation, although this term, no doubt, is generally applied to wild beasts in contra- distinction to n)3nS {behemah) domestic animals. Hence we find that term sometimes qualified as n3?T HTl (chaiyah raah) "an evil beast," (Gen. xxxvii. 33) or nDD tTTT (chaiyath *kaneh) " a beast of the reeds," it is, such a one as lurks in the reeds, as the cj'ocodi/e. (Ps. Ixviii. 31.) But the Hebrew word does n3p (kaneh) ; Greek, Kwva ; Latin, canna ; English, emu. people's commentary. 29 ihabitants nsects. tturea after their kind : tures, and fth clay, it ibitants to bh day, at .8 of living stood that more than th moving aplies that ired writer th," &c., to ree classes, applied to Qg became ) all fjrass- ?nd class is [id animals ,re so small es, ^vorm>i. created on ;e it is dis- undantly," ce in verse lOve upon il that the The third s) literally upon the Lnly means lough this |in contra- [ence we \yah raah) th *kaneh) \ the reeds, rord does not actually imply any vorpcity in the nature of these animals, and it is, therefore, very probable that at the time of their creation, and before the fall of man, although these animals, no doubt, were endowed with different natures, some being more or less adapted to be brought under the control of man, still, I say, there is nothitig in the signification of the Hebrew woi-d which would imply that they were at that time as fierce and ravenous as they are at present. Indeed, the fact that even the most ravenous of the wild beasts may be tamed at least to some extent, if not altogether, strongly argues in favour of their not having possessed that fierceness from the beginning. Hence, Isaiah, in his vivid prophetic declaration, ch. xi., 6-9, speaks of the happy time that shall be ushered in when sin shall have ceased again from man, and tlie peaceful kingdom of the branch that cometh out of the root of Jesse shall have been established as one of universal peace and amity between beasts and beasts, and beasts and man, implying, as it were, that the same amity shall again reign as existed before sin entered the world. We come now to the crowning act of the creation, namely, the creation of onan. The Fourth feriod was to bo preemi- nently distinguished from the three previous geological periods by the addition of the human family among the newly created inhabitants of the earth. It is an admitted f xct, that there never has been found a single fossil remain belonging to a, human being, not even in the newest Tertiary beds, except those nearest to our present surface. This conclusively proves that the human species never existed before the Scriptural account of creation.* ^ -. , i ^ / , , , ; > •:: * It is proper to mention here one I'ecorcled case of human skeletons imbedded in a solid limestone rock, discovered on the shore of (iuadaloupe. One of these skeletons is preserved in the British Museum. These fossil remains are some times alluded to, and much stress laid upon them as if they were of great antiquity, whilst, in reality they are comparatively of only recent formation. According to General Ernouf : "The rock, in which the human bones occur, is composed of consolidated sand, and contains also, shells of species now inhabiting the adjacent sea and land, together with fragments of pottery, arrows, and ha.tchets of stone. The greater number of bones are dis- persed. One entire skeleton was extended in the usual position of burial ; anotlier, which was in softer sandstone, seems to have been buried in a sitting position, customary among the Caribs. The bodies thus differently interred, may have belonged to two different tribes." General Krnouf also explains '* thn occurrence of different scattered bones, by reference to a tradition of a battle and massacre on tliis spot of a tribe of Gallibis by the Caribs, about the year 1779, A. D. These scattered bones of the Gallibis were probably covei-ed by the action of the sea with sand, which soon afterwards became converted into solid rock." It is, however, admitted by all geologists, that the rock in which these skeletons occur is of very recent formation. " Such kind of stones," says Mr. Buckland, " are frequently formed in a few years from sand banks composed of similar materials on the shores of tropical seas." (Sec Lin. Transactions, 1818. Vol. xii., p. 53. Also Buckland's Geology and Mineralogy, Vol. i. pp. 104, 105.) 80 people's COMMENTARlf. Sir Charles Lyell, in his celebrated work, " Principles of Geology," says : " But in none of these formations, whether secondary, tertiary, or ' "luvial,. have the remains of man, or any of his works, been discovered, and whoever dwells upon this subject must be convinced that the present order of things, and the comparatively recent existence of man as master of the globe is as certain as the destruction of a former and a differ- ent order, and the extinction of a number of living forms which have no type in being." (Vol. i. p. 147.) Professor Silliman, of Yale College, New Haven, Conn., in his introduction to the American edition of Martell's "Wonders of Geology," remarks : " It may, however, serve to engage the attention of those to whom geology is a terra incognita, if we,, in this place remark that no field of science presents more gratifying, astonishing, and (but for the evidence) incredible results. It strikes us that man has been but a few thousand years a tenant of this world ; for, nothing which we discover in the structure of the earth, would lead us to infer that he existed at a point more 'remote than that assigned to him by the Scriptures. Had he been contemporary with the animals and plants of the early geological periods we should have found his remains, and his works entombed along with them." (Eng. edit., -vol. i. p. 16.) There are, indeed, a few writers who, in their anxiety to impugn the veracity of the Mosaic account of the creation, appealed to Kent's Cavern of Torquay, as affording proof that man must have existed at a much more remote period than that which is assigned to him in Scripture. It appears that in that cavern some human bones and flint of human workmanship were found, together with the bones of extinct cavern animals, beneath a bed of stalagmite deposits, which it is alleged must have occupied a far greater i)eriod in forming than 6000 years. Indeed, they pretend to calculate the time to such a nicety as if they had been sitting there all the time with a chrono- meter in their hands. Not having seen the famous cavern myself, I am not in a position to express an opinion on the subject, but I will appeal to authorities whose statements will, I am sure, not for a moment be questioned. Milner, in his work, entitled " The Gallery of Nature," (p. 252,) gives the fol- lowing account : " Kent's Cavern in the limestone of North Devon, about a mile from Torquay. It is said to be nearly six hundred feet long, varying in width from two to seventy feet,, and in height from one to six yards. The bones of extinct animals are found to be buried in a mass of mud, covered over with a crust of stalagmatic formation. From certain appear- ances in this cavern, it seems to have been in former times the habitation of man, perhaps the bandits' home." people's commentary. 31 Maiiell, a well known and esteemed writer, in speaking of Kent's Cave, near Torquay, remarks in his beautiful work, " Wonders of Geology,' (vol. i., p. 182) : "But this cave is invested with additional interest on another account which we will briefly explain. The principal fissure extends 600 feet in length, and there are several lesser lateral ones. The lower part of the cave is filled up to a thickness of 20 feet, with reddish sandy loam full of fossil bones. This is covered by a layer of stalagmite from one to four feet thick, which fonns the floor of the cave. Upon this is a slight covering of earthy tnatter, with here and there patches of charcoal, a few human bones, and fragments of coarse ancient potteiy have been observed. Upon breaking through the sparry floor the ossifer- ous earth is exposed, and imbedded with the fossil bones, several flint knives with arrow and spear heads of flint, havo been discovered. These stone instruments are of the same kind as those found in the tumili of the early British tribes, and unquestionably belong to the same period. This fact has given rise to much curious speculation ; but the arguments which I shall presently bring forward, when speaking of a similar collection of works of art and human bones with those of extinct cavern animals will, I conceive, show that the data hitherto obtained, do not warrant the inference that these relics were contemporary." And a little further on Martell remarks: " When Kent's Cave was accessible, and before the formation of the floor of stalagmite, some of the wandering tribes of the early Britons may have crawled into the recess, or occasionally sought shelter ; and stone implements, bones, or any other hard substance left in the cave, would soon sink a few feet in the soft ossiferous mud and become hermetically sealed up, as it were, by the stalagmite deposits." Buckland, in his " Geology and Mineralogy, published among the Bridgevvater treaties (vol. vi. p. 104,) remarks : " The occasional discovery of human bones and works of art in any stratum within a few feet of a surface, affords no certain evidence of such remains being co-eval with the matrix in which they are deposited. The universal practice of interring the dead, and frequent custon of placing various instruments and utensils in the ground with them, offer a ready explanation of the presence of bones of men in situations accessible for the purpose of burial." And, at p. 105, he observes : " Frequent discoveries have also been made of human bones, and rude works of art, in natural caverns, sometimes inclosed in stalac- tite, at other times in beds of earthy materials, which are interspersed with bones of extinct species of quadrupeds. These cases may, likewise, be explained by the common prac- tice of mankind in all ages, to bury their dead in such 8S people's commextarv. \n ill convenient repositories. The accidental circumstances, that many caverns contained the bones of extinct species of other iinimals dispersed through the same soil in which human bodies may have been buried, affords no proof of the time when these remains erf men were introduced." Buckland then goes on to say: "Many of these caverns have been inhabited by savage tribes, who, for convenience of occupation, have repeatedly disturbed portions of soil, in which their predecessors may have been buried. Such disturbance will explain the occa- sional admixture of fragments of human skeletons, and the bones of modern quadrupeds with those of extinct species, iiitroduced at more eariy periods, and by natural causes." There are, too, not a few cases on record, where fossil bones of animals have been mistaken for human bones. Thus Schemhzer, a physician, in the year 1726, desorited a schistus rock from Peringen on the Rhine as containing an impression of a man, and actually wrote a dissertation upon the subject entitled Horao Dlluvii testis. In another work of his he main- tains, " that it is indubitable, and that it contains a moiety, or nearly so, of the skeleton of a man : that the substance even of the bones, nay more, of the tiesh, are tiiere incoi'porated in tlie stone: in fact, that it is one of the raj est relics which we possess of that cursed race which were overwhelmed by the Avaters of the Noachian flood." Now, it was rather cruel for Cuvier to deprive this ancient relic of its interest by declaring it to be nothing more than " a great salamandar." The femur of the bear has sometimes been mistaken for the human thigh- bone, to which it seems to bear a great resemblance. Any number of eminent writers might be quoted, who distinctly held that no traces of the human species, or of his works have yet been found in the strata of the earth, or as some express it, " below di-ift." It may probably be convenient for naturalists to class man with the animal kingtlom ; it is, however, plain the sacred writer has regarded him as a far loftier being. Man, as far as the structui'e of his body is concerned in many respects, no doubt, bears a strong resemblance to the animal ; yet, on the other hand, he possesses so many distinct characteristics which, I think, fairly entitle him to a higher position. Even heathen writers have not overlooked this important fact. " Many things are mighty, but nothing is mightier than man," says the great tragic poet Sophocles. And Ovid, one of the finest poets of the Augustan age, beautifully and graphically describes the ijuperiority of man in the following manner : *' A crcatare of a more exalted kind Was wanting yet, and then was man designed : Conscious of thought, of more capacious bidast. For empire formed, and fit to rule the rest : • ♦••»•«•♦ people's COMMENTAllY. 33 Ithings great |)et3 of |es the Thus, while the whole creation downward beud Their sight, and to their earthly mntlier teud, Man looks aloft, and, with erected eyeii, Beholds his own hereditary skies. " (Dryden's Ovid, Met. I., 67, 77, 84-86.) Aristotle also excluded man from the domain of the animal kingdom, and his example has been followed by ft ho.st of modern writers, who have more or lesa strongly protested against " his introduction into an arrangement of the brute mammalia." Man possesses yuch great and peculiar distinc- tive characteristics which will ever defy any attempt to trace his origin from the lower creation. Naturalists are accustomed to appeal to resemblances, but take care not to touch upon the real distinctive characteristics, such as intellectual and moral endowments and the use of speech. Mr. Swainson has very justly observed, "No w,'the very first law by which to be guided in arrangement is this, that the object is to be designated and classified by that property or quality which is its most distinc- tive or peculiar characteristic. This law, indeed, is well under- stood, and has only been violated by systematists when they designate man an animal. Instead of classing him according to his highest and most distinguishing property — Reason — they have selected his very lowest qualities whereby to decide upon the station he holds in the scale of creation." (Swain- son on the Natural History and Class of Quadrupeds, pp. 8-10. The sacred writer introduces the creation of man by repre- senting God as taking counsel with Himself. 26. And God said, Let Ua make tJ^j^ (Admn) man in Our image, after Our likeness : and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over tliefowloj heaven, and over t/te cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. " Let us make man," Moses couM not possibly have set forth more forcibly the importance of the creation of man, than by representing the Almighty after having by His mere fiat called all things into existence, now first takes counsel with Himself before He enters upon the act of the creation of man, for the very idea of taking coun.sel in itself presupposes importance, and it is undoubtedly the importance of the event that the inspired writer wishes to convey by the statement. " And let them have dominion." It was not to Adam alone that the power of subduing the animals was given, but to his descendants like- wise. But whilst man was invested with such great power, it surely does not imply that he at any time is permitted to misuse that power and unnecessarily inflict torture. Animals, it should be borne in mind, are endowed with thf, sense of 6 84 FKOFLES COMMKXTAKY. feeling as well as human beings, and, hence, to cause pain unnecessarily to any of God's creatures is no less repi-ehensible than to torture a human being. It is upon the principle of causing as little pain in killing animals for domestic use, that some of the rules in the Mishna (Treatise Cholin) are founded. Whether these humane laws of the Mi>*hna exercise any influ- ence upon the Jewish mind in general, I cannot sa^', but cer- tain it is, the torturing of animals among the Jewish people is of very rare occurrence either among the young or old, Altfiough many animals greatly surpass man in courage, in size and strength, yet by the possession of reason, with which the Almighty has endowed him, all created beings are brought under his rule. 27. "Anil God created man iii His image, in the image of GoeT created He him; a male ami a female created He them." This vei-se presents to us the momentous question, namely, in what respect can man be said to bear the image of Grod ? Surely not in respect to his body, for that, according to Genesis ii., 7, was formed "of the dust of the ground;" and in this respect man can claim no superiority over the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air, which, according to vei-se 19, were similarly formed. In what, then, does this resemblance exist ? The answer to this question is afforded in the same verse which informs us of the low origin of our body, for it likewise tells us that God, after having foi'med man of the dust of the ground. He "breathed into his nostrils (D^Tl £17303 nish- math cfiai-yim) the spirit of life." It is by this act of God's breathing in the nostrils of Adam "the spirit of life," that man became the image and likeness of God. The reader will please to notice, too, that man did not become "a living creature" by God merely breathing upon him, but lie having "the spirit of life" breathed "into his nostrils." Hence Daniel speaks of his body as the sheath of his spirit: "I, Daniel, was grieved in ray spirit in the midst of my (nDlD nidneh) sheath," (Eng. vers, "body"; but in the margin the literal rendering "sheath" is given). Hence, too, St. Paul says, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. iii., 16.) The body is the temple, the spirit is the dweller. It is related of an ancient philosopher, who was slighted by Alexander the Great, on account of his ugly face, to have answered the monarch, "The body of a man is nothing but the scabbard of a sword, in which the soul is put up." (See the Herbelot, Biblioth. Orientale, p. 842). The following beautiful staiizas on the soul, are taken from people's commentary. 35 rhich id by have |ut the e the from the " Critica Biblica," the author's name in not given. (Vol. ii., p. 2C3). "Hail ! everlasting spirit— breath iHvine Of the Almiuhty — Heaven's bright offspring, hail I When BUD, and moon, and stars shall cease to shine, Anil earth, and air, and ocean's waters fail, Thou still siialt be — immortal figure thine, Their history dhall be unto thee a tale Of times so distant, ages so long past, Thou would'st forget them, could thy knowledge wusu. Hail ! thou bright effluence of the Eternal Mind 1 Made in his image, form'd for his delight ; Onlain'd to triumph in the unconfined, And blissful presence of the infinite — Yes, thou shaft live, shalt really live, and find, Age, sickness, sorrow, pain, death, vauish'd (|uite — Unless thou now thy proncr'd gootl refusest. And earthly pleasure for thy portion chooseat. Man having become the image and likeness of God, hence it is, that the crime of murder was by Divine commandment to be punished with death : " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ; for in the image of God made he man." (Gen. ix. 2.) For he that taketh man's life effaces by that act the image of God. It is for this reason, also, that the Psalmist says: "And yet thou hast made him," (i.e., man), a little lower than the angels." (Ps. viii. 6 ; Eng. v. 5.) Ziegler, an eminent German writer, has also very pertinently remarked on this passage : " The breath of God became the soul of man ; and the soul of man, therefore, is nothing but the breath of God. The rest of the world exists through the word of God ; man through his peculiar breath." Hence, Solomon also said that " the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Eccl. xii. 7.) Some of the Greek and Roman writers seem to have become forcibly impressed with this Bible doctrine, and many of their expressions regarding the nature of man even bear a strong similarity to those employed in Scripture. Lucretius says : " The earth is properly called our mother ; that which conies from the earth, returns again into the eai th ; and that which was sent down from the regions of the sky, the regions of the sky again receives when carried back to them." (ii. 997-1000.) Euripides observes: "The body returns to the earth from whence it was formed, and the spirit ascends to the ether." (Suppl. 532-534.) The ancient Egyptians too, considered the soul to be essen- tially distinct from the body, and only connected with it through the link of life. Its nature was divine, and after death it passed to the great judgment hall where its future destiny is 86 peuplk: s commentary. determined by Osiris. The soul is soinetitnes represented ia hieroglyphical writings as a casket of fire, the cnsket syinboli- zing the uody, and the fire the apint. As the doctrine of the immortality of the soui has within some few years past been especially attracting a great deal of attention, and the lecture room, the pulpit, as well as the pen, have been made the vt: ' .l*^ for promulgating some very erroneous ideas concenung it, even by pei*sons who should think themselves greatly insulted to be classed among those belonging to the rationalistic school, it may perhaps not 1^ uimcceptable to my rea«lers if I enter here somewhat more iully upon the description of this highly important subject. The Sadducees, who rejected the vital doctrine of the immor- tality of the soul, held by the Jewish Church, as a consequence denied also the existence after death. In modern times the views of the Sadducees have been si(tj>slti) ine die the death of the righteous." So Job xxxii. 2, "against Job was his wrath kindle*h tachdth iwpesh) life for life." Nay more, it is even used to denote the. (le<«l, or de
    . xxxiii. 4, the term neshamah is spoken of as the :8pirit of the Almighty that giveth life : *' The spirit of God (ru-ach el) hath made me, And (nishmalh ahaddai) the spirit of tJie Almighty hathjgiven me life." Here the reader will observe Job draws the distinction, it is .not the (ru-ack) that gave him life, but the (neahamah) which was breathed into the nostrils of Adam. Besides the passages above quoted the term nTStCU (neshamah) occurs only in the following places in the Old Testament, namely : Gen. vii. 22, 2 Sam. xxii. 15, Job iv. 9, xxvi. 4, xxvii. 3, xxxii. 8, xxxiv. 14, xxxvii. 10, Ps. xviii. 16 (Eng. vers. v. 15) Fiov. XX. 27, Is. Ivii. 16, Dan. v. 23, x. 17.* The reader, on referring to these pas.sages, will find that the term (neaha- mah) in everj'^ instance, is either applied to God or man. In Gen. vii. 22, at first sight, it is apparently also extended to the animals ; but on a closer examination of the passage, and when taken in com f>ction with the preceding verse, it will be found that such is jiot the case. The passage, beginning at verse 21, reads : " And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth ; and every man." Then verse 22, goes on to say: "All in whose nostrils was nil fTS'^JS C^TI (nismath ru-ach chai-yim) the breath of the spirit of life, of all that was in the dry land died." The ex- pression, "in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life," evidently is only explanatory of "every man" at the end of verse 21, for the destruction of the animals has already been described in the former part of verse 21. The sacred •The above quotations are taken from Furst's " Hebrew Concordance," the most perfect Concordance published. PEOPr.ES COMMENTARY. 39 thing verse nrit ex- spiiit it the ready kacred le,"the ■writer, having stated that all inferior animals had perished, then goes on to say : " and every man : Every one in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life "; and then, in older to give additional force to his declaration, he adds: "of all that was in the dry laud died." We may remark, too, that in the original the phrase, " and every man," at the end of verse 21, is sepai'ated from what i)recedes by one of the two greatest •disjunctive accents in the language, which shows that the phrase was regarded as forming an independent sentence. In the English vei^sion it is punctuated by a comma, instead of a colon or temicolon, which are the proper equivalent to the Hebrew accent. I have rendered, as the reader will have perceived, the term n?3tCD (neshamah) by huvum being, to show that it refers exclusively to man, as the rendering " living creature," or living being Jis given in the Lexicons, or " every thing that hath breath," as rendered in the English version, might be taken as including the animals also. From the foregoing remarks it will be seen that the term n)aT2J3 (neshamah), according to scriptural usage is a special term for designating the spirit of God and the rational soul of man, which at once indicates the close affinity of man with his Creator ; and it is the possession of this spirit which so im- measurable exalts man above all other creatures. Hence the Psalmist exclaimed, , Wha h man, that thou art mindful of him ? And the son of man, that thou shouldst visit him ? And yet thou hast made him only a little lower than the *angels ; - And hast crowned him m -th glory and honor. (Ps. viii. 5, 6, Eng. vers. 4, 5.) Dr. Tupper .seems to have been fully impressed with the force and importance of the words, " and he breathed into his no.stiils the .spirit of life," when he penned the following graphic and beautiful lines, on the immortality of the soul : "Gird up thy mind to contempl.ition, trembling habitant of the earth : j^.j Tenant of a hovel for a day, thou art heir of the universe for ever! For neither the congealing of the grave, nor gulfing w.aters of the firmament, Nor exp.insive airs of Heaven, nor discipative tires of Gehenna, Nor rust of rest, nor wear, nor waste, nor loss, nor chance, nor change, Shall avail to quench or overwhelm the spark of soul within thee! * It is proper to state here that the word rendered "angels" in the above passage, in the original is Qin^^ (Elohim) Oai-!, one of the appellations of the Deit}', and is precisely the same which is employed in Grn. i. 26: "And (Elohim) God said, let us make man." It is, however, quite evident that the term was sometimes used in the sense of angels, for the Septuagint, Chaldee, and .Syriac versions, and also St. Paul in qu ting this passage, Heb. ii. 7, have rendered it in that manner. Still many modern critics, and among them Geseiiius, Ewald, and De Wette, persist in translating, " thou hu£t made him a little hiwer than God " ■H9H 40 people's commentary. 4 Thou art an imperishable leaf on the evergreen bay-tree of existence ; A word of Wisdom's mouth, that cannot he unspoken , A ray of Love's own light ; a drop in Mercy's sea ; A creation, marvellous and fearful, begotten by the fiat of Omnipotence. I, that speak in weakness, and ye, that hear in charity. Shall not cease to live and feel, though flesh may see corruption ; For the prison gates of matter shall l^ broken, and the shackled soul go free."' Scripture declai-es this n^atfii (neshamah) also to be the seat of understanding, " the candle of the Lord " which kindles the intellectual powers of man. *' The spirit (tl^StUD neshamali) of man is the candle of the Lord ; Searcliing all the chambers (i.e., the inmost parts) of the *body. (Prov. XX. 27.) " I thought days (t.«., age) would speak ; And multitude of years show forth wisdom, But it is (m"l ru-ach) the spirit in man, Ever (iTO InTStCD nishviath nhad(lai) the breath of the Almighty t/ial giveth them understanding." (Job xxxii. 7-8.) It is neither from length of days nor multitude of ye.irs, that understanding is to be expected, it is the spirit, which God bieathed into the nostrils of man, that gives it. Although the intellectual powers vary greatly in capacity among individuals and races in the human family, yet they are in no case entirely wanting. Mr. Otway, in speaking of the instincts of animals, in his work on " The Intellectuality of Animals," justly observes : " I find no development whatso- ever of the religious principle — not a spark of the expectation of another life." With man we see in the lowest of his specie* an expansiveness in the intellectual and moral structure, that })roduces longings for immortality ; and within the most darkened of the human race you can light up the aspirations, the hopes, and fears connected with another world. Compare in this way the lowest of the human family — the Bushmen of South Africa, whom Captain Harris, in a recent work describes as follows : — '• They usually reside in holes and crannies in rocks ; they possess neither flocks nor herds ; they are unac- quainted with agriculture ; they live almost entirely on bulbous roots, locusts, reptiles, and the larvte of ants ; their only dress is^ a piece of leather round their waist, and their speech resembles * English Version : " Inward parts of the belly," but "ItDS (beten) belly, is- sometimes metaphorically used in the sense of body, or that part oftlw. body which the SebreMTS regarded as tlie seat of thought or of affection, namely, the heart, or reitu. As, for example, Job xv. 35 : Thei/ conceive in mischief, and bring forth iniquity. Their heart (t35t3lll bitjiam, lit., their belly) prepared deceit." 11 PEOPLES COMMENTAKY. 41 lies m lunac- Ubouf* i-ess if^ Lnbles pelly, is- f which \art, or rather the chattering of monkej's than the language of human beings. Now there is little or nothing here better than what is found airongst the inferior animals. But, let us take & young Bushman, and put his mind under a right educational process, and we shall soon excite in him what we must ever fail to do in the young monkey, or dog, or elephant. We can communicate w him the expressiveness that belongs to any heir of immortality ; within him are the germs of faith, hope, and religious love, which do not exist in inferior animals." " A male and a female created he them." The rendering of, the passage in our Authorized Version, " male and female created he them," has been construed by some moilern natural- ists and physiologists — more especially among those of the United States — as indicating a plurality of createtl races of men. Of the most eminent of those who espoused this theory, we may mention Professor Agassiz, Dr. Morton, Dr. Nott, Dr. J. C. Warren, Professor Gibson, Dr. Kneeland. All these take the ground that " the received opinion that all human beings arc descended from one pair — Adam and Eve — is not supported by the Mosaic record." This positive as3ertion can only have been grounded on the rendering of the English version, for the original unmist ikably teaches quite the opposite, since the teims "i3t (sachar) a male, and nipD (nekevah) a female, are nouns and not adjectives, and. therefore, should have been rendtred as I have done, " a male" and " a female." Had the sacrod writer wished to indicate that more than one pair had been created, the nouns would not have been used in the singular, but with a plural form. In Gen. vii. 3, these very terms occur again where they are correctly rendered in our version " of the fowl of the air b}'- sevens, nnp3l "IDT (sachar imvhvah) the male and the female. But even if the terms were adjectives they would still require the plural form, for in HlIhow, contrary to what obtains in the English language, plural adjectives assume, like nouns, a plural form. Ill the second chapter, where the creation of Adam and Eve is more fully described, they are spoken of as "ujij^ {ish) man, and n'pi^ {ish-sha) xuoman. There is nowhere the slightest indication that originally more than one human pair had been created. Even the infidel writers Voltaire, Rousseau, Peyrcre, Gibbon, Paine, and Lord Kames, insisted upon that " the unity of the human races is everywhere taught in the Bible ;" but it was not in order to uphold the veracity of Scripture vliat they insisted upon this, but rather that they might use it as a weapon against it, for they persistently maintained " that there are distinct species — that they could not have sprung from a single pair — that in all the varieties there are impassable lines, and that the Bible, therefore, can: jt be true." 42 people's commentauy. rlHiv MH m II The writers, however, who reject the doctrine of the unity of racevS, are perfectly insignificant, both in talent and number, as compared with those who maintain it. A list of names affords no very interesting reading, still as the subject is a highly important one, affecting as it does a vital scriptural doctrine, the reader, I am sure, will bear with me in giving a list of the most eminent writers at least whose opinion on this point is entirely in accord with the Bible teaching. And here deserve first to be mentioned such renowned .scholars as Cardinal Wiseman, Archbishop Sumner, Chevalier Bunsen, Faber, Stanhope, Locke, Stillingfleet, Sir Walter Kaleigh, Sir James Mackintosh, Archbishop Whately, Lord Bacon, and Dougald Steward, who remarks: " The cai)acities of the human mind, have in all ages been the same, and the diversity of phenomena exhibited by our species is the result merely of the different circumstances in which men are placed." Of very great importance is the testimony afforded by such eminent Medical Men as Prichard, Abernethy, Carpenter, Rush, McCulloch, Combe, Sir Charles Bell, Tiedemann, Sir John Uichardson, Boerhave, and Johannes Muller, said 1 have been one of the greatest anatomists of our age. Of the most eminent Naturalists w^ho maintained the unity of races, we may mention Humboldt, Lyell, BufFon, Blumen- bach, Darwin, Cuvier, Leichenbach, Ernleben, Linnjeus, Audu- bon, Sir William Hooker, Professor Buckland, and Professor Owen, who says : " I am not aware of any modification of form or size in the negro's brain, which would support the inference that the Ethiopian race would not profit by the same influences favouring mental and moral improvement, which have tended to elevate the primitively barbarous white races." The unity of races has likewise been maintained by such eminent Ethnoouaphers and Linguists as Count de Gebelin, Frederick Schlegel, Abel Remusat Niebuhr, Herder, Hamilton, Count Goulianotf, Professor Vater, Sir William Jones, Gallatin, Hodgson, Sharon Turner, Grotius, Grimm, Ritter, Reicshen- berger, and Barrington. To these we might add the Academy of St. Petersburg, the Fiench Academy of Science, the Encyclopedia Metropolitana, and Brande's Encyclopedia. In order not to exhaust the reader's patience, I have selected only a few names from the long list of authorities that I have lying before me. One of our most prominent citizens forwarded to me a book entitled " The Negro, what is his Ethnological Status ?" asking my opinion as to the correctness of the definitions given of the Hebrew terms, upon which the ivriter and his reviewer based their arguments to prove that the negro is not a human being at all. The gentleman, in his note, stated that a people's commentary. 43 friend of his had been influenced by the arguments put forward in the book, and felt anxious to know whether these Hebrew terms really admitted of such an interpretation. As this is a suitable place, I will now fulfil my promise by furnishing my reply. I may at the outset say, that as the book is written under the fictitious name "Ariel," that alone is sufiicient to render the book univovthy of any notice. A writer who pro- mulgates such a startling theory as " that the negro belonged to the beast creation," (p. 4), and professes to found his out- rageous theory upon Scripture, ought, in all fairness, to have written under his proper name, and not, in a cowardly manner, endeavour to shield himself from the lash of criticism behind the shelter of an assumed name. It is indeed but a lame excuse to say : " We have written over a fictitious signature because the facts and the truths are all of God, and belong to God." Why then be afraid when certain of having such a solid foundation ? Ariel, w^ho professes to be so learned in Scripture, ought to have remembered the Scriptural saying : " If God he for us, who can he against us ?" After having gone over the book, however, I must say, the only sensible thing that I could discover in the whole book is, the withholding of the author's name. The book, from beginning to end, displays such an amount of ignorance and vulgarity, that one can hardly bring oneself to believe that it has been written by a person in his proper senses. I feel quite certain the reader will be of the same opinion, by the time I have done with Ariel. Hear this great teacher, he says: "Let me correct the ortho- graphy of this word negro : In Hebrew it is nlggar ; in Syro- Chaldaic it is nig'ar; in Latin it is niger; in Portuguese and other modern languages it is negro." (p. 37.) Now as to the two first-mentioned langunges, the man must renily be joking, for there is no such word to be found in any Hebrew or Syro- Chaldaic Lexicon. The only word in Hebrew that approaches even in sound is the verb "^53 {nagar) tojiow. In the Old Testament the people of hlack colour are always spoken of as D'^IDllS (Cashim) Ciishitcs, which, in our version, is always rendered by " Ethiopians." Hence we have the expression :" Can the I'QJ^S (Gushi) Cushite change his skin?" (Jer. xiii. 23.) Now the Cushites were descendants of Cush, the eldest son of Ham, and grandson of Noah. It is altogether erroneous to limit the Cushites to Ethiopia, as is done in our version, for it would involve some })assnges of the Old Testa- ment into utter confusion. Thus, in Gen. ii. 13, the river Gihon is said to encompa.ss "the whole land of Cush," rendered in our version, " the whole land of Ethiopia," which is an impo.saibility if the river Gihon is one of the four rivers that is.sued from the garden of Eden. " The land of Cush," here spoken of, was a 44 PEOPLES COMMENTAllY. ii, ■■-!>f 1^ m M n ft mi; tract of country in Arabia. In fact, the descendants of Cush apparently inhabited countries widely separated from each other. And thus we can understand how it was that Zipporah, the daughter of Jethnj and wife of Moses, is, in Numb. xii. 1, called a " Cushite," (Eng. vers. " an Ethiopian.") Ariel's next essay in Hebrew philology is, his definition of Hebrew words, which will rather startle the philologists of the present day. He remarks : " We set out with some four Hebrew words, Adhavi, ha Adam, designating the son of God, the ivhite man, and iah, designating the negro or black " man." Enosh designating the mulatto, the first-cross of white nnd black, and anshnj, designating the further cross of the white with the mulatto." (p. 97.) This definition of the four Hebrew words is quite the oppo- site to what has ever been held by Hebrew critics without a single exception. They have always regarded the term ish to be expressive of a higher rank than the term Adam. But Ariel calls upon his readers not to mind what Gesenius and other Hebrew philologists say, but what the Bible says. Well, as he appeals to the Bible, to the Bible we will take him, and prove to the entire sati^^faction of the reader, that according to Ariel's definition of the Hebrew words all the ancient Hebrews, from Adam to Malachi, were all negroes. Let us now commence with Adam. In Gen. ii. 23, we read : "And (Haadam) the man said, this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, on this account, she shall be called {inh-shah) woman, because out of {ish) man she was taken." Here, it will be seen, Adam calls himself ish, and his wife ish- shnh, which is onl}' the feminine form of ish, because she had been taken out of man. According to Ariel's definition then, of ish, Adam was a negro, and, therefore, called his wife a negress. Let us now go a step further. In ch. iv. I, we read : " And Adam knew Eve, his wife ; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten (ish) a man from the Loud. According to Aiiel then, Cain was a negro. Let us now go on to Noah. In ch. vi. 9, we read ; " These are the generations of Noah : Noah was a righteous (ish) man, and perfect he was in his generations." This righteous and perfect Noah, according to Ariel, was a negro also. in Gen. xxxix. 2, it is said of Joseph, "And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous (ish) man " ; not an Adam, but an ish, therefore he must have been a negro also. In Exod. iv. 10, Moses speaks of himself as an ish : " And Moses said unto the Lord, my Lord, I am not (ish) a man of ■words," (i. e., an elegant speaker). In Deut. xxxiii. 1, Moses is spoken of as ish Haelohim, " the man of God," so according to Ariel's definition Moses also was a negro, and not a ^vhite man. PKOPLES COMMKNTAUY. 45 In 2 Chron. viii. 14, David is also called ish Haelohim. " the man of God." So David must have been a negro also. There is really no use of quoting any more passages, for, as I have stated, if ish is a term applied to the negro, then there is no other conclusion that we can come to, but that the people of Israel belonged to the tiegro race. Ariel is no more fortunate in his definition of the other two Hebrew words. "Enosh," he observes, designates the "mulatto." Why, if Ariel's definitions are correct the white man is nowhere. By his making ish to designate the negro, he has made negroes of all the ancient Israelites including all the holy men and prophets ; and now by making enosh to designate " the mulatto," he makes mulattoes of the rest of the human family. The term enosh is seldom used in the sense of the singular, but more commonl}' collectively for the whole hnman race. Thus Pssdm vii. 5 : " What in {enosh) man, that thou art mindful of him ? And the son of (Adam) man, that thou shouldst visit him ?" This verse contains what is in Hebrew poetry termed a synonymous parallelism, namely, where an idea is expressed in the first clause of the verse, and the same idea is repeated again, but in other words, in the second clause. " Enosh" and " Adam" in the verse are, therefore, synonymous terms, mean- ing one and the same thing. And yet the enosh, who Ariel would not allow as much as to be human beings, are in the next verse spoken of as being made only " a little lower than the angels." Job uses similar language regarding the 67108^. _., ^ "What »■» {enosh) man, that thou shoulds't magnify him ? And that thou shouldst set chine heart upon him. " — (Ch. viL 7. ) "We come next to the term " anshey," which Ariel says, " designates a further cross of the white with the mulatto." In making this statement he displays an amount of ignorance which would be unpardonable even in a Hebrew student of only six months' standing. The word i'05i^ " anshe" is merely the genitive forme — or as it is in Hebrew grammar called the construct form — of the plural noun d'TJDi^ (anashim) men, which is the form commonly used as the plural of 'gj'i^ ("ish,") a man, which Ariel says designates "the negro." so that, accord- ing to his own definitions, the singular noun ish denotes " the negro," and the same noun in the plural " the mulatto." Now, we have clearly shown that if "ish" denotes "the negro," the Hebrews must all have been negroes, we will now equally as clearly show that if "anshe" d-^notes " the mulatto," the Hebrews must all have been mulattojs. 46 PEOPLES COMMENTAUV. ?! ■ * In 1 Samuel vii. 2, we read : " And the men of Israel (aushe Yitfruel) sent out of Mizpeh," according to Ariel it should read the muhitloea of Israel. This expression, and the expression (anHlui Yehudah) meii of Judak, occur very frequently in the OKI TestaTuent. We have now done Avith Ariel, and we must say, it has happily never fallen to our lot to meet with such wilful and barefaced misconstruction of Scriptural passages as are found in Ariel's book. The whole stj'le, however, betrays his gieat animosity towards the colouied race, and it is easily perceived, that the book was evidently designed to inflame the mind of the American people against it ; and in order to gain his object the writer did not scruple to have recourse to the most out- rageous statements. What staggers me is, that such a miserable production should have required a second edition. Surely, there is no accounting for some people's tastes. The language which Moses employs in verse 27 unmistakably speaks of the creation of one wan only; and God created Clfi^n (liaddam) the man in his own image. In the precedi ig verse the term tj^j^ (Adam) was used to designate the human species, " and God said let us make t]lJS< (Adam) man," it is 'inankind, in this verse the same term is applied to its type the fii-st man. The translators have : " So God created man," omitting, in a most unaccountable way, the article which, in Hebrew, is sometimes employed with a common appellative noun, in order to restrict its application to a particular object which is pre-eminent over all others of its class. Thus "inSH (hah-kohen) the priest, i. e. the high priest. Lev. xxi. 21. "ItsiU (Satan) an adversary, but ntofen (hassatan) the adversary, i. e. Satan. (Job. i. 6.) So in the passage before us dlfi^iT (haddam) " the man," the article is emplo3'ed by way of pre- eminence to indicate that Adam was " the man" who was created by the immediate act of God Himself. And so again, eh. ii. 7, "and the Lord God formed tn&^H (haddam) the man of the dust of the ground." In a similar manner the translators have omitted the article in Isa. vii. 14, and rendered : " Behold HTabjn (hadlmah) a virgin," instead of " the virgin," namely, " the virgin" of whom Immanuel was to be born. We have seen that God Himself had bestowed the names on things after they had been called into existence, and so accord- ing to Gen, V. 11, the name Adam was likewise given by God Himself " A male and a female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." The term d;j^ (Adam) can therefore not be a mere meaningless name : let us then inquire what may be its import. PKOPLfc.S COMMENTARY. 47 A great many critics havo derived the term CTJ^ (/-darn) from nTaiii {Adamah) the (jvoaiid, in reference to Adam hav- inij been formed of tlie dust of the ifrouiid. This, at first sight, soetns to he a very plausible derivation, and no wonder that it has been adopted by so many commentators. And, yet, there are two great objections to deriving the word in this manner. In tlie first place, the term Adam in that cnse woidd be as applicable to " tlie beast of the Held," and " the fowl of the air," which were likewise formed from the ground, according to Gen. ii. 10, and hence, would form no distinctive appellation of the Imman ^pecieH. Further, and I beg to L^raw the reader's particular attention to this point, in the account of the creation oi nmn, hitf earthly origin is not so much dwelt upon as Jiis heavenly origin. Tn Gen. i. 27, where the creation of man is spoken of, his earthly origin is not even alluded to. It is only in ch. ii. 7, where the creation of man is more fully described, that his earthly origin is mentioned. la the second place, it is quite against the genius of the Hebrovv language to derive viascidinc from feniinine nouns. In the Hebrew the mji.sculino nouns have the simplest form, and froui them the corresponding feminine names are formed hy mhWngiXiQ feminine endinj. Thus we have 'ttjij^ (is/i) a man, nffli< (ish-shah) a woman. 13?3 {nadr) a hoy, (na-drah) a f//r/, but not vice versa, this peculiarity seems to intin)ate the fact of the priority of man's creation. Now as HTDli^ (adamah) the (jroxind, is a feminine noun ; it would be altogether agains*. this rule to derive the term a^5^ {Adam) which is masculine, irom it. ,, ;^,'.„ i^;;/ •,; ' Seeing these objections, by far the more numerous writers have fallen back upon the more common mode ot deriving nouns, namel3%from the verb, and hence, have derived the term 0^55 {Adavi) from the verb QTJ^ (adam) to be red or ruddy, in reference to the ruddy or flesh tint of the countenance peculiar to the ('aucasian race. ' Now, whilst there cannot be the slight- est objection urged to such a derivation on philological grounds,, still, there is this great objection, as the term is a generic term of the human species, it would, therefore, not be an appropriate one to a very large portion of the human family. Indeed, we would here have to light a battle with the Chinese, for they, in ord«r to suit their complexion, insist upon man having been foi-med from yellmv earth. For my part — even leaving the objections which I have mentioned altogether out of the ques- tion — I have always regarded that the word mj^ {Adam) would be more suitably derived from the verb nTST {damoJi) to resemble, to he alike, because 9?ia/i was created Qinbjj^ tn^nil. {bidinuth Elohim) " in the likeness of God," (Gen. v. 1,) the Hebrew word for likeness being also derived from the verb »l?ai (dttmah), to be alike. 48 people's commextarv. \h k Some Hebraists may probably ask me to account for the letter 55 in the word 2155 (Adam) if derived from rjTai {dauuili). I answer, that it must Ije taken as ((formative letter emplojed sometimes in forming nouns from the verb as n3155 (arln-k) a locunt, from nai {ravah), to mxdtiply. nipS^ {ekdach) a sptirk- ing gem, from nip {Icadach) to kindle. 29. A nd God said. Behold, I have given to you every herb bearing $eed, which is upon tlte lohole/ace 0/ the earth, and every tree, in vohidk is tlie fruit of a tree yielding seed ; to you it shall be for food. 30. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of heaven, ami to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I liave given every herb for food ; and it was so. From these two verses it appears that at first God appointed the fruits and herbs only as food both for man nud beast. Man was to subsist upon seed bearing plants and the fruits of trees, whilst the animals were to feed upon herbs anrl the gi-ass of the fields. There was to be no destroying of life, but peace and concord wa^ to reijjn amontr all creatures. And a.«» it was at fii-st before sin, and with it all other evils entered the world, so it shall be in the happy and glorious time of the Mes- siah, when sin shall again disappear, and universal peace .shall be restored to all creatures. Then the wolf and the lamb, and the leopard and the kid, will again lie down together, and the lion, like the ox, will again eat straw, as at the time when they were created. When the little child shall lead them ; and the sucking child, without fear of harm, may ])lay on the hole of the deadly asp : and the weaned child may lay his hand upon the viper's den. (See Isaiah xi. 8 ) The ancient philosophers, Plato, Pythagoras, and his followers, regjirded it as a great crime to kill animals for food. They considered the earth brought forth an abundance of vegetables, so that there was no necessity for killing harmless creatures merely to gratify the appetite of man. One of the five gi-eat laws of the Buddhists likewise forbids the destruction of any living creatures. In modern times Swedenborg, Rousseau, Schelly, and many other eminent men likewise maintained that vegetivbles and fruits constituted the proper food for man, con- taining, as they affirm, all the ])rinciples necessaiy for the sustenance of life. They further hold, that an entire vegetable diet is even conducive to longevity, and rendei"s life more enjoy- able ; that the brain becomes more vigourous under such a diet, and the bodj' less susceptible to disease, whilst the strength necessary for manual labour is no less than with an animal diet. This beinrj the case, the vegetarians consider it unneces- saiy and cruel to kill innocent animals. In 1S4-7, a society waa PEOPLES COMMENTARY. 49 foraied ill England whose object it was to promote vegetarian- ism in that country, and a few years later a similar society was estahlished in the United States. The general opinion of physiologists is, however, not favourable to vegetarianism, and almost all medical men declare in favour of a mixed diet. Much, no doubt, depends both on the custom and the climate. From the expression, in eh. vii. 3, " and behold I will destroy them with the earth," it is evident that the earth was also to suffer on account of the great wickedness of man. The flood, whilst it swept away eveiy living thing except those preserved in the ark, was also to bring destruction upon the eatth itself. In what manner and to what extent the earth's condition became changed, it is impossible to say, since we liave no infor- mation as to its state before the flood. We may, however, rea onably infer, that as the permission to use animal food was given to Noah immediately on his coming out of the ark, the changed condition of the earth, rendered such food at least beneficial if not altogether necessary. And this circumstance furni.shes another proof of God's ever merciful and gracious dealings with men. lole of UDon any sseau, that cou- the stable njoy- diet, ingth 51. *' And God saw evertf thing that he had made, and behoh!, it was very good. And the evening and the morning loere the sixth day. The work of creation being now finished, the sacred writer represents God as surveying all He had made, and declaring it perfect in every respect, all things answering the end for which they weie designed. The completion of the work of creation on " the sixth day " is also indicated by the use of the article with that day, whilst with the other days it is omitted in the original, although it is given in the English version. Literally rendered it would read " first day," " second day," &c.,but here we have " the sixth day," as much as to say, the day on which the work of creation was completed. I have already had occasion to state that in Hebrew the artich is sometimes employed with an object to give it prominence a'love its kind, and so heie, the article distinguishes "the sixth day," above the other days. But, it may probably be asked, why was the work of creation spread over six days, when the Almighty might have affected all in a moment ? To this may be answered, one reason apparently was — though there may be other reasons unknown to us finite beings — to lay the foundation for the institution of the Sabbath as a day of rest, and to be religiously observed. The six days of creation are to serve an example to mankind that he is not to .<»pend his daj's in idleness, but in useful occu- pation, in fact, the work of God should be the type of the work of man. And as God rested on the seventh day, and sanctified 8 ^ 5U I'KOI'I.K S COMMENTAHY. bii' it, althoii(;h He requiifs no rt'Mt, for He " is never fatigued nov wem y (Isn xl. 21); ; >4o iiiaii shuiild rest from his work on that day, and iceep it hoU*. lietbre entering on the scfond chapter, it is hut right to refer to a theory which has not onU* lH!en a(h)pted hy nmny natu- ralists, liut Hkewise hy many coinnientatois, and whose opinion has heen also esp»ine whether such a renderinjj would Ihj suitable to the cor' , or how it would afl'ect other pas.sages of Scripture. Fj -atuialists, I .say, such an impiir}- could hartlly be expected, out I must confess that it is somewhat suiprising that this theor}' .should have found so much favour among commentators, whose cliief aim should be to harmonize, and not to create confusion, to explain, and not to perplex, and to reconcile without violating the com- mon usHge of language. In order to ^how the utter fallacy of this theoiy, or as Dr. Kalisch.in his Commentary, remarks regarding it, how "readily it crumbles to pieces at the mere touch," I propose to examine it in a threefold aspect. It will show to my readers, that I do not treat the theories of otlier writera, who may differ from me, in an off-hand manner ; but, on the contrary, show them the fullest respect. In the first place, then, we will inquire whether this theory would, after all, remoye all ilifficulties in reconciling the Mosaic account with the discoveries ma*le in geology. Secondly, whether the substituting of the term period for d'ly is suitable to the context. And tliirdly, whether the rendering of the Hebrew woi*d QT» iy^"^) by peviod is authorized by Scriptural usage. As the choice apparently lies between this theory and the one which I have given in my comments on the cha])ter, I b PEOPLK H Cf »MM KNTARY. 5t crave the icailer's paiticulnr attention to the following renin iUh: Acconling to the Mosaic iiarnitive all plants nn«l trees were created on tlie (liini cidf/. The creatures inhaltitin^ the waters, ami tlie fowl )f tlio air, on tlio Jijtii day ; whilst the creatures inhaliitiiig the dry ground were not created until the h/.i7/i day. Now we are tohl by geologists that animals are found as deep in the rocks as vegetables; indeed it would appear that shells, fishes, and reptiles existed long before the pericMl of plants which are compressed in the carboniferous beds. Let us hear what the distinguished geologist, the late Hugh Miller, says on the sultject: All geologists agree in holdintr that the vast geo- logical scale naturally divides into three great parts. Tliero are many lesser divisions — divisions of systems, formations, deposits, beds, strata, but the master divisions, in each of which we find a typo of life so unlike that of others, that even the unpractised eye can detect the difference, are simply three — the paheozoic, or oldest fossiliferous division, the .secondary or middle fossiliferous division, and the tertiary or latest fo.ssili- ferous division. In the first the pahi'ozoic division, we find conds, crusUiceans, mollusks, fishes ; and, in its later formation a few reptiles. But none of these classes give its leading, character to the palaeozoic; they do not constitute its prominent feature, or lender it more remarkable as a scene of life than any of the divisions which follows. That which chiefly dis- tinguished t) i»ali\3oz<>ic from the second and tertiary periods wAn its gorge vn(' flora.' In like manner lie describes graphi- cally the other two great divisions. The middle divi.sion he characterizes " as an egg-bearing animals, winged ami wingless. Its wonderful whales, not, however, as new of mannnaiian, but of reptilian class." In speaking of the tertiary period, he remarks, that it has also " its prominent class of existencies." Its flora seems to liave been no more conspicuous than that of the present time ; its reptiles occupy a very subordinate place, but its beasts of the field were by far the most wonder- fully developed, both in size and numbers, that ever appeared on earth." (Testimony of the Rocks, pp. 135, IG!).) Now, at first sight, these three giaiid divisions certainly appearin a raea.sure to agree with the third, the fifth, and thesixth days of the Mosaic account, but on a closer examination they will be found to present such dirticulties as render a reconcilia- tion with the Biblical account utterly impossible. According to the Mosaic account, on the third day nothing but plants were created ; but Hugh Miller says, and he afllirms that all geologists agree in it, " the first graml division, the paloBOZoic," which is supposed to answer to the third day's creation, contains also jrniea and reptUes, which, according to the BiVjlical account, were i i i ri 52 PEOPLES (JOMMENTARY. only created on the fifth de.y, so that, according to the period theory, tiuo indefinite ages of thousands and thousands of years must have elapsed between the creation of plants and that of ftshen and reptiles, during wliich time the constant formation of these strata were steadily proceeding, and, the first grand division, ought, therefore, to contain only fossils of the vegetable kingdom, and not a single fossil of oiiher fishes or reptiles should be found there. Then, again, it appears from the above extracts, that it is an admitted fact, that " in each of the master divisions there is to be found a type of life so unlike that of the others, that even an unpractised eye can detect the difference." Now new types presuppose new creations, M. D'Orbigny the eminent French naturalist has distinctly asserted, that " not a single species of the preceding period survived the last of these catastrophes ; which closed the Tertiary period and ushered in the Human period." (See Essays and Reviews, p. 263.) Where then, I would ask, have all the creatures that inhabit our globe now come fi*om, unless they had been created by the Alniighty, as is recorded in Genesis 1. So far, then, from the Bible narrative teaching anything adverse to geology, geology itself becomes an undoubted witness of the truthfulness of the Mosaic account. Now, if it is a certain fa6t that new creations must have taken place from tirae to time in order to replace these plants and animals that have previously perished by catastrophes, we may well ask, what advantages does the period theory afford, even supposing there were no philological or other objections to it? Is it not, by far more reasonable to suppose, that the Mosaic account describes merely the commencement of the Fourth or Human per ^od., commencing with a brief description of the state of our globe as it existed when Moses commenced his narrative, namel}'', that " the earth was void and waste, and darkness was upon the face of the deep ; and the Spirit of God moved upoii the face of the deep," and then proceeding to inform us how^ the earth was again replenished with plants and ani- mals, and, above all, how man was ci'eated? I would again remind the reader of the admitted fact that there has never yet been found either a single fossil of any of the now exist- ing species which could possibly connect our period with that of the tertiary period of the geologists, or a fossil remain belonging to the human species, except those already alluded to, and which, as we have shown, are of but recent formation. If we take this view of the subject, surely there is nothing in the first chapter of Genesis which tan be said to teach any- thing adverse to the discoveries which have been made in the natural sciences. There is not even an allusion made in the PEOPLES COMMENTARY, 53 chapter to any of the preceding periods, except what is con- tained in the general statement in the first verse. But there is yet another difficulty which the period theory presents, which, alone, ii' there were no others, is altogether fatal to it. According to the sacred narrative the vegetable kingdom was created on the " third day," and if that really means a geological period or age, then it must have been a sun- less, moonless, and starless age, since these were only created on the fourth day ; and it follows, that the term "evening" must then mean a long period of uninterrupted darkness, whilst the term " morning " must, on the other hand, mean an e({u&l\y long period of uninterrupted light. Such a state of things would soon have been fatal to vegetable life, no plants or trees could possibly have survived such an ordeal. Any one Avho has ever tried to keep alive a few plants in a dark place during a few winter months may form some notion how utterly impossible it would be for plants to exist through, per- haps, thousands of years of uninterrupted darkness. And yet such must inevitably have been the case according to the period theory. The celebrated botanist, J. H. Balfour, in his " Class Book of Botany," a work used in many colleges, says : " If a plant is kept in darkness it soon becomes dropsical, because the roots continue slowly to absorb moisture, while the leaves have no power to exhale." (See page 450.) And yet we find that the grass and herbs, created on the "third day," were, on the " sixth day," appointed for food, both for man and animals, which clearly demonstrates that they could not have been subjected to guch an ordeal. Hugh Miller evidently perceived this ditiiculty, and endeav- oured to get over it, by supposing the sun, moon, and stars to have been created long before. He says : " Let me, however, pause for a moment to mark the peculiar character of the language in which we are first introduced, in the Mosaic narra- tive to the heavenly bodies, — sun, moon, and stars. The moon, though absolutely one of the smallest lights of our system, is described as secondary and subordinate to only its greatest light, the sun. It is the apparent, then, not the actual, which we find in the passage, what seemed to be, not what wafi : and, as it was merely what appeared to be the greatest that was described as the greatest, on what grounds are we to hold that it may not also have been what appeared at the time to be made that has been described as made ? The sun, moon, and stars, may have long been created before, though it was not until the fourth day of creation that they became visible from the earths surface." (Testimony of the Rocks, p. 134.) 54 PEOPLES COMMENTARY. Precisely so, it is just what I said, when commenting on Gen. i. 14. If these luminaries were created long before, though not visible until the fourth day of creation, it follows that our globe, which forms a part of the planetary system, must likewise have been created long before the first day of creation, and, there- fore, the account contained in Gen. i. does not furnish a cosmo- gony '^ the earth further than what is contained in the first verse of that chapter, and there is, therefore, nothing to be gained by adopting the period theory, even if it were admissible. From the foregoing remarks, it will no v be seen that how- ever plausible the period theoi'y may at fii'st sight appear, on closer examination, as Dr. Kalisch very justly has remarked, "it crumbles to pieces." Then, when we come to examine this theory, as to its agree- ment with the context, and its eflfeot on other passages of Scriptuie, we are met at every step with such insurmountable difficulties that one begins to wonder how such a theory could over have been seriously advanced. Let any one sit down, and write the sentence, "There luas evening and there ivaa morning the first pet iod, and calmly look at it, and I feel persuaded he will at once come to the conclusion, that no writer would ever use such a phrase in conveying an idea which he wishes to be readily understood. We use the ))hrase " morning and evening of life " figuratively for youth and old age, but such a phrase as evening and morning of a period, we unhesitatingly assert has never been ])enned by any writer in any known language. But even if the terms evening and morning were suitable terms to be used in connection with period, surely the proper way of expressing it wou\i be morning and evening of a period — for in such a connection morning could onl}'^ be used instead of beginning, and evening instead of end — otherwise we would have the end befoi'e we have tlte beginning of a j^eriod. No such difficulty arises in the ex])lanation we have given in the Commentary, where we have shown that the mentioning of evening before vxorning accords well with the existing state of darkness before the light was made to appear. Then, again, we are met with the stubborn fact — and which I hold in itself to be altogether fatal to the period theory — that if the six days of the creation are six periods, the seventh day must likewise be an indefinite period. Then, what becomes of our Sabbath? Is that likewise an indefinite period? If so, what becomes of the fourth commandment ? (Exod. xx. 9, 10, 11.) Let any one read that commandment, and substi- tute period, for day, and he will find that it .s rendered utterly incomjirehensible. Yet that commandment cannot possibly be .separated from the six days of creation, for the last verse assigns the reason why the Sabbath should be kept holy, people's commentary. 55 P h-lM namely, " For in six days the LouD made (ordered or fashioned) heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day, and hallowed it." Then, again, in Exod. xxxi. 12-18, we have this commandment enlarged upon, and the punishment for not keeping it assigned, namely, " every one thatdefileth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doth ayiy work therein, that so'd shall be cut off fiom among his people." — (v. 14.) And, ii. the following verse, ' whosoever doth