vIti§lEgipp
•
t.
ii, z	',•:.
I	f„	R	g 33r ,	if --=ai,:f F • .CP'
CO • t' r5-i,c'":1
i!ail 17
tzSt 
fr3
k°
I
I
I
Fj
r.
)3-`k
lilt
k
a
4
F
st
Ji
C,
NOTES ON GENESIS:
DESIGNED PRINCIPALLY FOR THE USE
OF STUDENTS IN DIVINITY.
BY THE
REV. SIR C. MACGREGOR, BART., M.A.,
t •
Wes.A.14-011-041.1WWWE, AND RURAL DEAN.
THE FIRST PART.
LONDON:
JOHN W. PARKER AND SON, WEST STRAND.
M.DCCC.LIII.
Cambribse :
ikintrb at the Uniintsith 13rms
TO THE
RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH,
BROCKLESBY PARK.
MY LORD,
IT is 1961411g. to your Lordship's kindness in translating me from an urban to a suburban sphere of duty, that I owe my present leisure for literary employments. I am anxious therefore to shew my gratitude to your Lordship by dedicating what I may perhaps call the first fruits of such leisure, though a stray sheaf or two in a pamphlet shape, have preceded it. I do not offer this as a worthy tribute of esteem, for I deeply feel how inadequate it is, both with regard to its own merits, and as an expression of my feelings ; but as the best in my power to present to one to whom I not only owe my present official position in Lincolnshire, but who has ever been a true friend to me. Your Lordship's kind permission to dedicate to you the work of which this fasciculus' is the earnest, and to which I trust it will form the introduction, if God spare my life, considerably increased my pleasure in publishing it.
With my most sincere wish for your Lordship's temporal and eternal welfare,
I have the honour to remain,
Your Lordship's
Very faithful and obliged,
C. MACGREGOR.
CABOURNE,
April 1853.
PREFACE.
SOMETHING of the kind which is now very humbly
attempted, has long appeared to the Author to be a desideratum with the Christian Student. The Book of Genesis is perhaps the most important Book of Holy Writ, inasmuch as it forms the foundation on which the superstructure of the law and the prophets, and above all, the Gospel, is necessarily built. Take it away, and you at once nullify the rest. Hence, a thorough knowledge of it is a most important step for the student to attain. Now both the practical and critical commentaries on this book are many and excellent. And the theological works which refer to it, and directly or indirectly, immediately or incidentally illustrate it, are also numerous. But yet the author knows of no manual which combines a philosophical, critical, historical, and doctrinal view of the different chapters of this book. To him therefore it appeared, that an effort to supply this—even if the various grave and momentous questions educed by a consideration of the narrative in Genesis were most superficially treated—or even if the different volumes which had discussed these
vi	PREFACE.
subjects fully and separately, were merely referred to from time to time, thus bringing them at one view under the notice of the reader — might not prove altogether useless. He was moreover confirmed in this opinion by the fact, that one great bar to the student's proficiency in the subjects here brought forward, is the scattered form in which they exist, so that often it is only after years of theological reading • that a person becomes acquainted with even the existence of some of them, and still longer before he arrives at any satisfactory conclusions concerning many of them. Whereas it is very desirable that those at least who are to teach others should themselves be well informed, and that early, upon the different points of the scriptural account of the first ages of the world, so that the objections of the man of science, or of the historian, or of the philologist, may at once be met by them with success, and the objector foiled with his own weapons.
In pursuance of this object the present little work is designed. And it will, it is hoped, have succeeded in bringing together a good deal of matter for study upon all these various subjects, and also in collating and presenting the opinions of many able and learned divines upon them. And when the conclusions arrived at by the author himself are deemed unsatisfactory, and fail to carry conviction with them, he trusts they will not prove offensive to those who dissent from them, since they are never uncharitably urged, or even dogmatically offered. His endeavour throughout has been to furnish information which may lead the reader to
PREFACE.	vii
judge for himself on the different questions, and never to obtrude his own opinion when it would naturally sink into insignificance, amidst the galaxy of opinions, ancient and modern, which exist on the several topics here introduced. If the following notes shall have, in the least, contributed to the elucidation of a portion of God's word, the time devoted to drawing them up will have been well spent, and the author richly compensated. Should this not prove to be the case, still the intention will have been the same. May His will always be done !
It has been thought well to insert minutely more references than usual, even at the expense of incurring the imputation of pedantry, since such references may possibly facilitate the researches of the reader who is anxious to follow out the subjects for himself, and since the present volume is designed principally for the use of students in divinity, though it will not, it is hoped, prove uninteresting to the general reader.
CABOURNE VICARAGE, NEAR CAISTOR,
March 11, 1853.
NOTES ON GENESIS.
IT would be unnecessary here to enter into the several  arguments against the eternity of matter. It will perhaps be sufficient to glance for a moment at one or two insuperable objections to such a supposition. For instance, had matter been eternal, its existence being in that case metaphysically necessary, it could not be liable to change, for liability to change implies imperfection, and imperfection is not compatible with necessary self-existence; whereas there is no part of the universe of which it can be predicated, that it has always been or is now immutable. Moreover, if matter be eternal, it must constitute one indivisible whole, which is not true of the universe, for it consists of many parts, every one of which is either a mechanical or a chemical compound ; lastly, an eternal duration of time, made up of parts which are measured by successive rotations of the heavenly bodies, is mathematically an impossibility ; therefore an eternity of existence with regard to such bodies is impossible1. These objections, while they disprove the eternity of the universe, do not apply to the great, self-existent, eternal Being, because He is immutable, Ps well as indivisible in all respects. With regard to the atheistic opinion, that the world might have been created by chance, not to mention the absurdities into which this necessarily leads its advocates, it may be stated that contrivance proves design, and design implies a designer, and contrivance universally appears. In this respect, therefore, the book of nature pronounces no less certainly as to the existence of a great First Cause, than the book of revelation. The books which have undertaken the confutation of atheism on the above and other grounds, would of themselves form a vast library, stretching backwards into the remotest antiquity, and perhaps arriving at a climax in Archdeacon Paley's Natural Theology and the Bridgewater Treatises.
1 Vide Burnet On the Articles, Art. 1. p. 22. 8vo. Edition 1839.
1
2	NOTES ON GENESIS.
Leaving then atheistical objections, the reader must proceed to consider what God tells him in His word. And in doing this, he should bear in mind, that in the Mosaic account of the Creation, he must not look for a revelation of scientific facts ; for this was not the purpose for which it was intended. He should only expect, since Moses was inspired to write it, that God, in His book of revelation, would not make statements inconsistent with others contained in the volume of nature. But then, before rejecting any interpretation of Scripture at which he may arrive, on the ground of its inconsistency with natural phenomena, he should be more sure of the correctness and certainty of his version of the language of these phenomena, than he is of the interpretation which he is about to reject. Nay further, he may even find Scripture making use of the current phraseology of the age in which it was written, as a medium through which to deliver truths, though that phraseology itself be opposed in strictness to scientific deduction, since it would in some cases fail of delivering the truth at all, if it did not make use of such language to convey them. We constantly do this ourselves at the present day, when we talk of the sun rising and setting, and crossing imaginary lines on the earth's surface, as for instance the equator. Thus the sun was said (Joshua x. 13) to stand still at Joshua's command. Thus Job, in allusion to the prevailing belief of his day, speaks of the pillars of heaven (xxvi. 11)1, and St Paul asks the Galatians, who hath bewitched them that they should not obey the truth?' And yet no one, since the days of Galileo, would consider these expressions as tantamount to Scriptural assertion of the sun's potion round the earth, or of the earth being a vast plain with pillars which supported the heaven as another plane, or of the power of witches over mankind.2
1 Compare also Psalm xix. 6 ; xxiv. 2 ; civ. 5.
2 It would be well also for the student of the writings of Moses generally to bear in mind that he will discover throughout no attempt at justification of facts. The facts are related, and he is left to believe or reject them at his own hazard; but the inspired historian and legislator never condescends to offer a particle of evidence in their favour : it is a dignified style of narration throughout, which requires in the reader either a certain degree of attainment, so that he may appreciate the truths related, or else a certain degree of modesty which will lead
NOTES ON GENESIS.	3
These first three chapters of Genesis contain accounts of much that must necessarily be very difficult to us. Indeed, the Jewish doctors were so sensible of this, that they 'admitted not their disciples to look into them until they were of the age require,' for entering on the priestly office'.' For this then we must be prepared in what follows.
CHAPTER I.
1.—In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
SOME commentators consider these first two verses as only a title or summary of what afterwards follows in detail. And those who do so, consider the words in the beginning' (rtin) as referring to the very first existence of matter in any shape whatever, and its emanation solely from the divine mind 2. In this sense it plainly contradicts the eternity of matter ; for if matter were eternal, there could be no beginning of its existence. But others think that it refers to the beginning of what they call the second act of creation, by which things were formed out of chaos by the hand of Deity ; and consequently they enter into minute discussions as to whether this time was the autumn or the spring. Those who think that creation took place in the autumn season, affirm, first, that the civil year of the Israelites began with the month Tisri cln-9, which is the first month of autumn, and which signifies beginning' ;' secondly, that the sabbatical year commenced with the autumnal equinox at the command of God (Levit. xxv. 9); and, thirdly, that the maturity of fruits in the autumn seem to indicate that season'.
him not to cavil at that upon which ho is often scarcely qualified to sit in judgment.
1 Leighton's Theological Lectures, Lecture XI. ; Works, Vol. iv. p. 278.
2 riiv, comes from rig", a head, or source of anything. This
word gave the book its title—Genesis, or ycvecrls, which is the word used in John i. 1.
3 From the Chaldee root ;Inv, to begin.
4 Herman Witsius, On the Creed, Vol. i. p. 207, Dissertation 8.
1-2
4	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. I.
But who existed at the beginning ? and at whose bidding did
creation take place ? God' (Vitt7N) ; and this term by being in number, plural, and by being joined to a singular verb, is thought to afford evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. Bishop Horsley remarks, (Bib. Crit. in loco) that the sacred writers, had there been no plurality in the Godhead, must have been determined by the principles of their religion (Exodus xx.) studiously to avoid the use of a plural, especially as they had singulars at command. He considers all those cases in which the plural is used of one person of the Trinity only as explicable on the principle He that bath seen me hath seen my Father also,' one person of the sacred Triad always representing the whole. The case of Judges xiii. 22, where this term is said to be applied to a mere angel, is not apposite, since the angel referred to is without doubt the angel of the covenant' who
always appeared to the patriarchs. rit,tt is used in Psalm xviii.
31 ; Deut. xxii. 18. Gesenius (Grammar, § 143-2) lays it down however as a general rule that plural nouns with a singular signification are construed with the singular. He refers to Gen. i.
1-3 and Exod. xxi. 29. Some derive 1:1707N from
adoravitt.
But what did this mighty Being do ? (brI) He created.'
Now this word as used in Scripture does not always necessarily mean created out of nothing ;' e. g. Numbers xvi. 30; Jeremiah xxxi. 22 ; Ecclesiastes xii. 1 (whereas men are the offspring of their parents by natural generation). So the new heavens and new earth said to be created (Isaiah lxv. 17) will not be, made out of nothing. And things renewed are said to be created (Psalm civ. 30). This word is sometimes used in the sense of constituting ' (.e. g. Isaiah xli. 20 ; iv. 5 ; xlv. 7, 8, 18, &c.) But here it seems to be used in a twofold sense ; first, as representing the creation of chaos out of nothing ; and, secondly, the formation of this beauteous world out of chaos. Both these processes seem to be expressed in Revelation iv. 11 : Thou bast created all things,' whether they be void and formless, or beautiful ; and also in 2 Maccabees ix. 28 : My son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider
1 Vide Walton's Prolegomena, edit. Wrangham, Vol. ii. p. 533 ; De Linqu4 Arabia.
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	5
that God made them of things that were net.' St Paul also tells the Hebrews (xi. 3), Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.' Perhaps the first creation of chaos is alluded to (Job xxxviii. 4) thus : Where roast, thou when I laid the foundations of the earth ? &c.' and the second creation is alluded to by Jeremiah (in ch. x. 12) when he represents God as outwardly developing and impressing upon matter his own mighty mind and
But what did God create ? The heavens and the earth rvitrt rim wtmil Mt There exists some difference of in-
terpretation here also, some considering that under the term
the heavens,' Moses includes all creations of mind, and under the term 'the earth' all creations of matter. But according to this division, our souls would come under the first head ; but the creation of these is afterwards described.
Some think that there is an allusion to the heaven of heavens' or the locality, if locality it be, in which God's throne exists. Arid they consider that the order of creation is here given, as follows : first, the heavens and their contents, viz. angels, archangels, &c., secondly, earth and its contents. The heavens appear to be put for Lheir contents and the earth for its contents in Heb. xii. 26, 27. Others again think that these terms are merely equivalent to the TO 7rctv of the ancients, which seems the most probable supposition. There can be no doubt that these terms implied the universe, whether they also included the heaven of heavens or not. Though the following passages would shew it to be a locality (1 Kings xviii. 30 ; Psalm xi. 4; Eccles. v. 2 ; 2 Kings x. 11 ; Mark xii. 15, xvi. 19 ; Luke ii. 15 ; Acts vii. 55 ; 1 Pet. iii. 22 ; Rev. iv. 1, 2, xii. 10), yet it is
1 Those who think that matter could not emanate from spirit must first give reasons for such a supposition ; and, even then, it behoves them to shew that the only alternative is true, namely, that it came from nothing, or at the will of nothing, as an effect without a cause. It is thought by some that Scripture attributes some corporeal power to God in Colossians ii. 9.—Milton, On Christian Doctrine, 4to. p. 183. Indeed some of the ancient fathers, as for instance, Tertullian, placed the Deity, angels, and man's soul, all in the category of extension. Tatian also allowed extension to a thinking substance. The first Article of the Church of England seems directly opposed to this idea.
6	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[cm I.
highly improbable that God's habitation should be coeval with this our world, man's habitation ; although it does not follow from this that it should be eternal.
	Gesenius and others derive tytv from	excellere'.
Now of this earth we are told that it was created a shapeless mass. And the earth was without form, and void. This was the condition of it in the beginning,' before the framing, stratification, and formation of it took place. The conjunction of these two words together is most graphic of the state of chaos. Inn occurs alone in Isaiah xxiv. 10 ; Job xxiv. 7 ; vi. 18 ; xii. 4 ; Deut. xxxii. 10 ; Psalm cvii. 10. They ()1.11
occur together in Jer. iv. 24. The sun, moon, and stars as yet possessed no influence upon the mass itself, beyond perhaps that of attraction and repulsion, keeping it in its orbit. Perhaps the earth was then in a nebulous state (like that which some comets and planets have been thought to assume at first2 which were by Herschel and Laplace supposed to be nebulous uncondensed masses gradually forming) the gases not being yet mixed with the metallic bases owing to excessive heat ; as the temperature cooled down the component elements of the different rocks would combine, as, for instance, the silicium and oxygen would form quartz—the silicium, potassium, calcium, &c. with oxygen would form felspar, and the same with the addition of magnesium would form mica ; next these three would form granite. After this the crystallization of these rocks would probably take place. And then they would be no longer without form, and void,' although the earth itself might still be so. These primary un-stratified rocks are granite, gneiss, mica slate, talcous and chlorite slate, porphyry, magnesian limestone, serpentine, sienite, saussurite, &c. But the absence of light is also here implied, for darkness was upon the face of the deep.' There is a very
general traditionary	among mankind	that darkness pre-
ceded light3. rid is derived from Lia, humile esse. —And
the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Some
1 Walton's Prolegomena, Vol. it. p. 533. Edidit Wrangham.
2 Vide page 12.
3 Fairholme's Geology of Scripture, p. 59; Sharon Turner's History of Creation, Vol. 1. p. 13, Let. lit.
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	7
have translated trl17K 1117, a powerful wind,' deriving the one from 'fit 'power,' and 1111 wind.' But the same word
which is here used is elsewhere translated Spirit' in the Old Testament, and it answers to irveillza in the New Testament (the word used in John iii. 8), which also signifies wind,' on which Aristotle remarks, that although it signifies wind,' it is used also for that substance which in plants and animals is the principle of life and fecundity, and produces all things. And this agrees with the expression, the soul of the world.'
Here then is another person of the Trinity introduced separately. The operation of the Father in creation appears to be
described in 1 Cor. viii. 6 :	But to us,' says the apostle,
there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him.' The operation of the Son appears from the same passage, And our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him' (and also in Heb. i. 2 ; xi. 2 ; Psalm xxxiii. 6 ; Ephes. iii. 9 ; 2 Pet. iii. 5) ; and the operation of the Holy Ghost from Psalm civ. 30, Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created : thou renewest the face of the earth ;' and in Job xxvi. 13, By His Spirit He garnished the heavens.' Perhaps the latter part of Psalm xxxiii. 6 ought to be rendered by Spirit' instead of breath.'
The word here translated moved is (ntrr-it). Grotius
tell us that it signifies the brooding of a dove over its egg, and that in this word there is the signification of love. To give all the heathen myths which have arisen out of this opinion would be an endless task. Grotius relates many of them. They appear to have arisen out of the Mosaic account. Indeed some of them expressly mention Moses, or Musmus ' as they term him. Thus the void of creation,' says Jonathan Edwards2, was filled by the incubation of the Spirit. And thus the fulness of the creation is from God's Spirit. As the Spirit of God is here represented as hovering or brooding as a dove ; so it is probable that when the Spirit of God appeared in a bodily shape, descending on Christ like a dove, it was with a hovering motion on his head, signifying the manner in which not only He personally
1 De Veritate Christiance Religionis, Lib. 1. c. 16, notes.
2 Edwards' Notes on the Bible.
S	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[Cu. I.
was filled with the fulness of God, but also every individual member of his mystical body. So that this that we have an account of is one instance wherein the old creation was typical of the new.' The new creation seems to be somewhat similarly described in Ephes. ii. 9. Some think the root of 711 incubuit
(Syr.	(Arab. 6...a„.)) is trrl, amavit. This word
occurs in Deut. xxxii. 11, and Jer. xxiii. 9, where it is differently
7
rendered. Gesenius tell us the Syriac ..M.J43 is far more common, and is used of birds which brood over their young. Ephr. Syr. 2. p. 552, of parents cherishing their children ; p. 419, of Elisha cherishing the dead body of the child ; Ephes. i. p. 529 ; also of a voice descending from heaven and hovering in the air, &c. Vide also Schwf. Syriacum Lexicon. In Arabic
they employ (,) in the same sense.
The Sanskrit institutes of Menu, translated by Sir William Jones, tell us, says Mr Sharon Turner1, that the waters are called Nara because they are the production of Nara, the Spirit Of God : and since they were his first Ayana or place of motion. He is thence called Naryana, or moving on the waters.' He gives also some traditions of the Chippewyan Indians to this effect ; and also a passage from the Scandinavian Voluspa. Perhaps it would not be incorrect to place the whole of the primary rocks, the transition, the secondary, the tertiary, and a great part even of the post tertiary, at or previous to this period. There is, however, a difficulty in the way of this supposition. How, it may be asked, shall the plants and animals which the fossiliferous strata contain be accounted for, many of the latter having eyes, which imply the existence of light, whereas light, plants, and animals were not then created, according to Moses ? To this it might perhaps be answered, that Moses nowhere affirms that light was then called forth for the first time, but only that it was called forth, and it appears quite possible that it might have been chemically generated long before, and then having been succeeded by darkness, afterwards called forth afresh (vide p. 9). It might also be said that the creation mentioned here as the work of particular days or periods, was only
1 Sharon Turner's Sacred History of the World, Vol. 1. Lib. 1. p. 14,
notes.
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	9
the creation, not of extinct species, or even of fossil species which are not extinct, but only of those recent specimens which were destined to occupy this world with man ; and that no others would come at all within the scope of the Mosaic narrative to particularize. This interpretation seems to allow all the time which geologists may demand for the solid formation of their strata, however largely these gentlemen may be inclined to draw on the bank of human credulity, and to call forth myriads of ages from the womb of time as if they were only moments. Still this interpretation appears to render the Mosaic narrative crude. And it should not be forgotten that geology is still in its infancy ; and that many successive theories rise fast and continually afresh on the ruins of the previous ones. Perhaps therefore more knowledge on this subject may, by producing a greater coincidence with the inspired outline, render this interpretation unnecessary. Professor Moses Stuart (in his Philological View of the Modern Doctrines of Geology) doubts whether geologists have as yet made a sufficiently extensive survey of our earth to enable them to pronounce positively and accurately as to what species are extinct and what are not ; or as to the positive non-existence of any human remains in any strata prior to the diluvial; and he throws especial doubt upon the supposition that the Almighty should create for so many ages, as geologists affirm, a series of strata inhabited only by the inferior animals—man, the lord of the creation, being as yet unformed. It seems just possible too that they may not have sufficiently taken into account the effect of great superincumbent pressure in hardening the strata' in a short time—allowing at the same time for the possible counteracting effect of a central fire. Perhaps too the effect of electricity has been somewhat passed over. Possibly also the story of the Craigleith fossil tree said to have been discovered in 1830, which was about 60 feet long, and which intersected 10 or 12 different strata of sandstone at an angle of 40°, was an evidence that the strata might not have
taken so long to form as some have thought. Some, however, •
there are who instead of placing the formation of the secondary and tertiary strata here, place them in the days mentioned subsequently ; and, when met by the objection that this makes
1 Vide Mrs. Somerville's Connexion of the Sciences, Sect. x. pp. 94, 95.
10	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. I.
the animals and plants which these strata contain, to be born, brought to perfection, and put an end to, in one day, they affirm that the day does not here represent a period of 24 hours, but a period of long duration. This, however, will come under consideration afterwards.
Others there are who, unwilling to assign these strata to this period, suppose that they were formed indeed before the deluge, but after the creation of man, and they agree with their adversaries in assigning the diluvial formations to the flood. Sharon Turner seems to take this view of the case ; but he appears to leave the fact of the non-appearance of all human remains unaccounted for. Fairholme I tried to establish the contrary. But in this he has signally failed2. He also endeavours to evade this powerful objection to his theory, by rather gratuitously supposing that the flood was caused by a change of ocean level, by an obtrusion of the bottom of the sea and a subsidence and consequent submersion of the former dry land. But it is not easy to reconcile this theory with the scriptural account of the four rivers of Paradise, and of Mount Ararat.
So that after all, perhaps, the solution open to the fewest objections is that which places the formation of all the ante-diluvial strata, before the creation of man, and in fact before the work of the demiurgic days altogether. But why is it absolutely necessary to reconcile Scripture and Geology at all at present ? Why not leave this matter until this science has progressed further in its march ? Would such a course undermine the authority of Scripture ? By no means. There are so many facts which would at once rise up and condemn the man, who would give up revelation on account of its supposed inconsistency with the present unsettled state of geological discovery. The evidences in favour of Scripture, from every other quarter and even from Geology itself, in many respects are so numerous, forcible, and extraordinary,—the weakness of any arguments
1 Geology of Scripture, pp. 377-430, ch. xiii. Edition, 1833.
2 Compare his arguments with those of Cuvier in his Theory of the Earth, § 32, pp. 128-135 ; and of Professor Jameson, in his notes upon it, pp. 356-360, § 13. Vide also Dr Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise, where this subject is particularly treated of, and Mr Fairholme's supposed case of human remains found in a fossil state shewn to be the skeleton of a Carib woman.
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	11
against it which could possibly be drawn from Geology in its present infantine condition, is so manifest both from the constant decrease of discrepancies, and increase of coincidences between the two—that to reject revelation on account of any scintillations which this science may be supposed to throw out in its progress, would be most injudicious and absurd, to say nothing more of it. Nor is it necessary at once to decide that because we are right with regard to Scripture, we are wrong with regard to Geology ; but the pious and judicious man will hold fast to revelation, feeling sure that he is not deceived there, it having the evidence of all the other sciences and of all civil history, as well as its own internal evidence in its favour; while at the same time he will not utterly reject at once any supposed scientific facts, because perchance he may not yet be able to reconcile them with Scriptural assertions ; but he will wait in humble confidence that time will eventually make both science and revelation speak no discordant language, in this as in other respects ; and if after all he does not find this to be the case, but increased scientific knowledge diverges further from Scripture, then he may perhaps entertain a doubt, not whether Scripture itself be true, but whether his previous interpretation of it be correct.
When Scripture is attacked by the geologist, then perhaps it is allowable for the Scripture student to retort upon his antagonist, by appealing to the avowed recent change of opinion of the greatest geologists. Until that occurs, however, it would appear that the candid avowal of such changes, and public retrac-tation by some of the first scientific men of the day, adds greatly to their credit, by shewing that they preferred truth to preconceived ideas, and were not ashamed to own that they were wrong when they found themselves so. Such guides command our confidence (e. g. Buckland, Sedg wick, Greenough, &c.) rather than men (like Fairholme, Granville Penn, &c.) who start with preconceived opinions, and then reject every scientific fact which militates directly or indirectly against their own hypothesis, with whom the Aristotelian method is preferred to the Baconian. Yet at the same time their works contain some facts and suggestions which should not entirely be passed over.
Ver. 3. And God said, Let there be light : and there was light. Whether light had existed at all before the issuing of this divine fiat or not, one thing is certain, that darkness had
12	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. I.
previously to this moment overspread the earth, when the decree Let there be light' came booming and thundering across the mighty waste of deserts and of waters. And in obedience to that command it was followed up by instantaneous brilliancy, thus affording a beautiful type of that time when the night of our fallen nature, a worse than Egyptian darkness, a worse than that darkness which might be felt,' is illumined by
the great	11, when brooding over disordered passions he
repeats the order with regard to each of us, and educes chris-tian harmony out of this moral chaos. We all know the awful effect of a thunderstorm on our minds, when the momentary surrounding darkness is succeeded by flashes of instantaneous light, illumining the whole surrounding landscape for a moment. We can well fancy then what must have been the effect on this occasion, when the light disclosed a scene of the convulsions and throes of heaving nature, magnificent indeed to contemplate. But this was a sight destined, it may be, to delight angelic intelligences, but not destined to gratify man's observation, just as the daily recurring moral instances, of which it is a type, call forth the joy of the angels of heaven.'
The sublimity of this passage is briefly noticed by Longinus' in his work on the Sublime. There appear to exist several theories of light, e. g. the idea that it consists of certain rays of different colours and refrangibility, and the idea that it is an undulating vibration2 of an ethereal medium universally diffused, &c., which latter seems especially to account for its being independent of the sun. But even if it were dependent on the sun, there has lately arisen a most scientific way of explaining this apparent anomaly, in perfect consistency with the Mosaic record. Sir W. Herschel's theory of the luminous nebula which abound in the heavens, is that they are gradually condensing and forming spherical nuclei, in the shape of fixed stars. Now the sun was possibly one of these and would contain light, and even emit it on the first day, and on the fourth day its final condensation and its consequent completion as a spherical orb might be accomplished 3.
1 Longinus 7rEpl lAkovs, Part i. sec. 9, c. 11.
2 Somerville, Connexion of the Sciences, ch. xix. and xx.
3 Bishop Shuttleworth, Consistency of Revelation, pp. 51-54, ch. v.
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	13
The word I'M here, translated light, includes the idea of heat as well. Vide Isai. xviii. 4. It has also the tropical and secondary signification in the bible of Urim' (as it is called) in the plural, 13'11K, described in Exod. xxviii. 17-21. It is
cognate with the Arabic	which is used for heat as well as
light. Light as connected with heat might have existed previously to the formation of the sun, from various causes. Electricity could produce it (as those who know the brilliant light called up by an electrical machine are aware). Light might arise from fire, the effect of volcanic agency. There are said to be, even now, about 200 volcanoes in the strata from which heat and light are from time to time emitted. Light as well as heat too might arise from friction of some kind or other, or from chemical combination, or from the property of incandesence communicated to various bodies. These few facts at least shew that light might have existed previously to the sun's affecting our globe.
Milton describes very sublimely the creation of light in his apostrophe to it, at the commencement of his third book of the Paradise Lost, and most touchingly alludes to his own deprivation of it by blindness, in the third line.
Vers. 4 and 5. And God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. This word day (in the Hebrew text 135', in the Vulgate
Diem, in the Syriac	in the Septuagint 'Hi.4cw, in
the Chaldee Targum of Onkelos ritt', in the Arabic \}=1).,11,
T T
which is put down in Richardson's Persian and Arabic Dictionary as a Persian word), has several meanings in Scripture. The first and most obvious meaning of it is, one diurnal revolution of the earth around its own axis.
The second : one revolution of the earth round the sun. e.g. Numb. xiv. 34 ; Ezell. iv. 6 ; Dan. xii. 11 ; Rev. xi. 3, 9 ; xii. 6.
The third : a thousand of these annual revolutions of the earth, e. g. Psal. xc. 4 ; 2 Pet. iii. 3, 8 ; Isai. ii. 12 ; xiii. 6 ; Joel i. 15 ; Zeph. i. 7, 8 ; Mal. iv. 5 ; 1 Thess. v. 2; 2 Pet. iii.
10.
Fourthly : it is put for a period of six days at least in
14	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. L
Gen. ii. 4. Dr Pye Smith' however objects to the quoting of this instance, that it is not the simple noun which is here used but a compound of that noun with a preposition, formed according to the genius of the Hebrew language into an adverb, requiring to be rendered by such words as when' and at the time after.' He refers to Exod. xiv. 57; Numb. xxx. 5 ; Deut. xxi. 16 ; 2 Sam. xxii. 1 ; Neh. xiii. 15, &c., and other instances in Noldius. But this does not appear greatly to alter the case after all, allowing the word to be used adverbially.
Now comes the question, which of these meanings is to be assigned to it in the case before us ? There appear to be but two opinions on this point, the one referring it to one diurnal revolution of the earth as the period of its duration ; the other, an indefinite period. In favour of the indefinite period the following ingenious argument has been adduced by Faber 2. The seventh day must be of equal length to the other six days. Now on the seventh God rested from all his work, therefore the seventh day is not yet at an end, for if it were, God would have recommenced his work, which He will not do until the eighth mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 10-13, when he will create the new heaven and the new earth. Therefore the seventh day must be at least 6000 years long, for it is now 6000 years since God's rest began. And therefore this seventh day being the gauge of the other six, they were each at least 6000 years long. In support of the antiquity of the very great length assigned to the demiurgic days, he quotes passages from the Institutes of Menu and the Zend-Avesta, to she w the opinions of the ancient Brahmins and of the Persians. To the indefinite or very long definite meaning however of the word 1:1' it is objected that the evening' and the morning' are always mentioned, (47 and Iplo and that
these are definite terms ; and this seems to limit their duration to the corresponding duration of light and darkness3. From
1 Geology and Scripture, Lecture VI. Part I. p. 186.
2 Faber, On the Three Dispensations, Bk. I. ch. iii. pp. 126, 127.
3 It has been asserted that the Oriental versions of the Bible give the passage thus : `There were mornings and evenings a first day,' indicating in fact that the term is used to mark a long interval which embraced mornings and evenings without number. But in the Hebrew, in the Syriac, in the Arabic, in the LXX. and in the Chaldee Targum, it is literally, as in our version : It was evening and it was morning, day the first. Vido Walton's Polyglot. in loco.
CII. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	15
this objection some have endeavoured to escape by assigning to each day a period of unlimited or not very limited length, which was terminated by a day of twelve hours, and supposing that it was this day of twelve hours that was spoken of as constituting the light, and then the evening' succeeded at the commencement of the next period by the darkness, and then the morning' of another day. But this hypothesis seems hardly tenable, and very gratuitous. Others have eluded the difficulty, by asserting that evening' and morning' are not always in Scripture limited terms, and in proof of this assertion they refer to those passages which speak of the morning and evening of life, and of the morning of the resurrection. But these are figurative terms. Faber 1 very ingeniously remarks, that even in the first chapter of Genesis these expressions must not be understood according to their present or common acceptation. For the natural evening and morning are produced by the revolution of the earth round its axis, while exposed to the action of the solar rays ; and the formation of the sun, we are assured, did not take place until the fourth day or period. Hence, as the evening and morning of the first day plainly could not be natural, they must be artificial ; in other words, they must simply be equivalent to commencement and termination ; the evening apparently being made to precede the morning because chaotic darkness was prior to distinct light.' But this argument takes for granted the necessity of the solar rays to the formation of the evening and morning in their natural acceptation, which is by no means so ; and even if it were so, the sun though not formed as a sphere until the fourth day or period, might, according to Herschel's nebular hypothesis, yet constitute an evening and morning. And Mr Faber's first argument apparently takes for granted also that the Creator has not been continuing his work ever since, and is not doing so now ; which assumption all astronomy leads us to deny, with regard to other worlds ; especially if Sir W. Herschel be correct in his theory. As applied, however, to comets this hypothesis has been shewn to be at variance with facts. Still it must on the whole be acknowledged that this theory of Faber's meets all the difficulties mentioned before, not only by allowing time for the formation of the strata,
1 Ibidem, p. 127.
16	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. I.
but also by accounting for the existence of animals with eyes inclosed in those strata, without referring the strata to a post-
Adamic period. But it has been further objected to this theory
quoted by Faber, that it makes the earth to exist so long a time without rain (according to Genesis ii. 5), for we are told at the
conclusion of the six day's work that the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,' which is thought to be exceedingly improbable on this supposition. But no certain argument can be founded on this, for a mist had always, we are told, at the conclusion of the same verse, gone up and then watered the whole face of the ground.' Another geological objection to it is, that in the Mosaic account, animals were not created till the fifth day or period, so that the four first periods would only include vegetables. Hence we should expect to find four-sixths or two-thirds of the fossiliferous rocks without animals ; but this is not the case. Lastly, some weight should be attached to the injury which this interpretation does to the common acceptation of words, and the harsh and forced construction which it puts upon them, as well as the door which it opens to an unlimited license of interpretation.
If, however, the day 1:11' mean, in its primary acceptation, a diurnal rotation of the earth, it involves the ideas of both completeness and a given rapidity, for it must not only perform a complete revolution on its own axis, but perform it at a certain rate, in order to accomplish that revolution in a given period of time. I cannot find all this implied in the word 1:". Gesenius tells us the primary idea appears to be in the heat of the day,
since	seems to have arisen from in' to be hot, by softening
-
down the guttural, Arabic cf., to burn.' Richardson, in his Arabic Dictionary, gives ,i a hot day. Schaaf gives no
derivation or origin of the Syriac	Dr Lee tells us that
it takes its name from the warmth of the day, as distinguished from the cold of the night.' He derives it from the Arabic
141i, domes callida. Cognate	iratus est. These roots
certainly appear to refer the word in its primary sense more to our day, than to the long period referred to.
Those words immediately preceding the mention of the evening and the morning being the first day,' viz. and God divided the light from the darkness' seem to imply, that the
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	17
beginning and end of the day or period were certainly coeval with the beginning and end of light and darkness, which ill agrees with Mr Faber's theory. Among the fathers, however, Origen, Augustine, and also the Venerable Bede, may be quoted as holding that opinion which prolongs the meaning of the word day.
Ver. 6-8. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament : and it was so. And God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
The firmament. There is no allusion here to the idea of the Greek philosophers of a solid firmament, as some have erro-
neously supposed, for the word (r,v-i) ought properly to be
-
translated the expanse' or atmosphere.' The root of it is VI), which signifies he spread out.' It occurs in Job xxxvii.
18. It signifies also to spread out by beating. Exod. xxxix. 3 ; Num. xvii. 4.
This atmosphere is a mechanical rather than a chemical compound of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbonic acid gases, with traces of ammonia and hydrogen, and in fact everything else which ever at any time assumes a gaseous form. Its uses are very varied ; it modifies the extremes of climate by means of its constant circulation. It promotes the health and growth of plants and animals by effecting an exchange of gases. It forms a medium of communication between men ; and a vehicle of light ; while at the same time it always yields' to the slightest pressure on all sides, so as never to impede man's motions. The mutual adaptation of the atmosphere to the animal and vegetable kingdoms may be seen in the fact that the plants while exposed to the sun, retain the carbon, and give out the oxygen of carbonic acid, thus purifying the air of this gas, and restoring to it the element oxygen, which fits it to sustain in health the animals.
Now this firmament, we are told, was to divide the waters that were under the firmament from the waters that are above
1 See an excellent description of the atmosphere in Whewell's Bridgewater Treatise, ch. xv.
2
18	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. I.
the firmament.' And does not the airy expanse or atmosphere
around our globe even now perform this function?	For there
is,' says Jeremiah, a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth.' (Jer. x. 13).
Ver. 9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place. This of course implies that the exact mass of water was gathered together which would best supply the clouds and rivers with its aqueous vapour, and no more, and be best adapted to feed the vegetable kingdom which was afterwards to be created. Any alteration in this magnitude of the ocean would produce a corresponding alteration of climate, and therefore in the health of the whole vegetable and animal kingdoms. What foresight have we in this prospective contrivance ! or, if it be said that plants and the lungs of animals were afterwards adapted to the humid state of the atmosphere, still the adaptation is equally wonderful. Of the mode in which this was performed Geology does not inform us, it merely states the fact. Geology seems to suggest that the land was elevated above the water by volcanic agency. The Psalmist well describes something of this kind in the 104th Psalm, Thou coverest it with the deep as with a garment ; the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled ; at the voice of thy thunder they basted away.' And let the dry land appear. This it did probably at first in the shape of islands, which form the mountain tops emerging from the waters would assume, if indeed the mountains were not subsequently protruded by distinct volcanic agency. And God called the dry land earth ; and the gathering together of the waters called he seas. The distribution of the waters is admirably adapted to the uses of man. MoreoVer, a very slight rise of the ocean level would drown the whole earth, or a very slight depression would render it extremely unhealthy. The most recent analysis of salt water gives of 1000 grains as follows :
Pure Water	964.745
Chloride of Sodium	27.059
Chloride of Potassium	.766
With traces of Iodine, Am- Chloride of Magnesium 3.666
monial Salt, and organic Bromide of Magnesium	.029
matter.	Sulphate of Magnesia	2.296
Sulphate of Lime	1.406
Carbonate of Lime	.033
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	19
Of course these exact proportions will vary in different localities. Vide Ellis's Chemistry of Creation, p. 408. Pt. in. ch. 2.
Ver. 11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth : and it was so. From the form of expression made use of by Moses in this verse as implying that the earth brought forth' these things, and from the form employed in the 20th verse, as implying that the waters brought forth' other things, Professor Stuart' infers the optical nature of the Mosaic description altogether. The vegetable kingdom is mentioned here in its three natural divisions ; viz. grasses, herbs, and trees ; and in its powers of self-production ; thereby implying organic structure. This day's work ascended one grade higher in the scale of being than the former. The vegetable world presents an appearance of vessels and cells, of the circulation of sap, of woody fibres, pith, bark, and leaves, of inspiration and expiration, of supply whose functions the root discharges, and of assimilation, secretion, and waste, and of growth, and only appears to be deficient in the property of locomotion, having all the other attributes of physical life. It produces a seed, or egg, to the development of which heat is favourable ; and it possesses a capacity of feeding on animal, mineral, and other vegetable substances. It is subservient and adapted to many of the purposes of art. It reaches its appointed period, like all other organized productions, then dies and dissolves.
Some think that the vegetable kingdom as here described, was not coextensive with its present highly cultivated state, because many improvements in the present species are constantly being made, even at the present day. But this can be only conjecture, for the possibility of the previous existence of any species is implied in its present existence. It is thought possible by some that the vegetable kingdom might have arisen first in one particular portion of the globe, rather than universally over its surface. Sharon Turner thinks that one piece of ground containing mountain, valley, and fen, would be sufficient for the growth of the plants2 of all climates. Humboldt discovered a variety somewhat of this description in the island of Teneriffe. If this
1 Philological View of the Modern Doctrines of Geology, p. 8.
2 Turner's Sacred History of the World, Vol. r. p. 217, Let. vii.
2-2
20	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[Cu. I.
were the case, the winged seeds would afterwards be carried, by a thousand causes, all over the globe, each soil and climate reproducing the species to whose development it was most suited. It is a curious fact, that in the Western hemisphere vegetation is predominant, whereas in the Eastern, animal force preponderates, not only in extent, but even in organic structure. We shall see this if we compare the strength, agility, longevity, and fecundity of the nations of America, with either the Malayan or Mongul races (Vide Schlegel, Philosophy of History, Lect. ii. p. 110). The more probable theory of several different centers of vegetable life has now met with the most numerous and the most scientific advocates, and is generally held. Dr Pritchard (Phys. Hist. of Man, Vol. 1. pp. 50, 51. edit. 1836) was an assertor of it. He seems to have thought that each plant had its center. De Can-dolle advocated it. Hugh Miller seems to take it for granted (Footprints of the Creator, pp. 228, &c.) Professor Henslow thinks there were forty-five different centers (Descriptive and Physiological Botany, pp. 305, &c.)..
Ver. 14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night ; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. This should be translated, Let there be two great luminaries.' The word used here is not 1:1"1g, 'lights,' but n'liNt, light bearers.' One ray of sun-light, according to modern analysis, has been divided into three separate rays—one of heat, one of light, and one of actinism. These rays of the sun perform an important function in creating those circulations in the atmosphere, so essential to its purity, and to human health. These lights are not said by Moses to be great in proportion to others, as orbs, but only as light bearers. In this sense only the moon could be called 'great.' Herschel thinks that the light which proceeds from the sun does not proceed from itself, which is an opaque body, but from the luminous atmosphere surrounding it. The dark spots on its disc are supposed to be caused by the opaque body being seen through the occasional rarity of this atmosphere. It has also been observed that these varied in number and perhaps in magnitude through certain periods, perhaps quinquennial cycles. Now these variations have also been observed by Professor Farady to correspond with the periodic variations of the needle on our earth—on comparing the result of the ob-
CH. I.]	NOTES ON CIENESIS-	21
servations of Lamont with those of Scwabe. This affords one proof among others that the earth and the sun have influence upon each other, not only as gravitating but also as magnetic masses. The latest scientific opinion about the moon appears to be that it is not habitable, having no atmosphere, or a very thin one, and no verdure, and no vegetation, that ice and snow cover everything on its surface. The illuminating power of the light derived from the moon is said to be 100,000th part of the illuminating power of the light derived from the sun. La Place made it 300,000 times less.
Ver. 16. An extraordinary instance of allegorical interpretation occurred with regard to this verse, when Pope Innocent the Third told King John, that by these two lights' are meant the office of the Pope and the office of the King ; the Pope being the greater and the King the less, and that as the light which rules the day is superior to the light which rules the night, so
the papal was superior to the regal dignity.	Now this alle-
gorical interpretation,' says Bishop Marsh, absurd as it may appear, is not more absurd than many which are vented in the present age. It is, however, absurd enough : for the comparison is not only unwarranted, but is an actual'inversion of the truth. The things spiritual and the things carnal, to which reference is here made should have changed their position : the luminaries should have been transposed. For spiritual dominion, whether exercised by the Pope, or by those who resemble him, is not a power that rules the day, but a power that rules the night'.' He made the stars also. It does not seem at all necessarily to follow from vv. 14, 15, and 16, that the stars were in the fourth day placed there for the first time, although v. 17 seems to imply it. But perhaps v. 17 may only mean that they were set in the firmament as luminaries to our earth, or, in other words, this description may be of an optical nature, i. e. may only have reference to the visible effects upon our earth of the things described. In conformity with this notion some think that Moses only alluded here to those stars or planets, ten in number, six larger and four smaller, with which our earth is connected. Others consider the whole number of fixed stars, the suns or
1 Bp Marsh's Lectures on the Interpretation of the Bible, Lect. vt. p. 370.
22	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. I.
centers of their different systems, to be included in these words. Of these 2000 only are said to be visible to the naked eye ; but when we view the heavens with a telescope, their number seems to be unlimited. Perhaps even these, though remote, cannot be said to be entirely destitute of all influence on this our globe. The center of all these systems and of the whole astral system, round which they are all supposed to revolve, is said to be the star Alcyone in the Pleiades.
Ver. 19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Supposing the moon to have, existed in the same relation to the earth which she has ever since held, and to have been on the first day at that period of her course which we call the new moon, she would not be seen from the earth till the third evening of her revolution, which exactly answers to the fourth evening of the Mosaical days, if actual days they be of twenty-four hours ; which affords another argument for the optical
nature of the description. The word	'morning,' is derived
from Int, he looked out ;' TV comes from 17, 'he mingled.' 1- r 
Ver. 20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that bath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the firmament of heaven. This and the next verse contain the account of the fifth day's work, the creation of fish and fowl. Moses, you will observe, now makes the Creator to ascend from the vegetable world that has life without motion to the moving creatrieft' that has life. Some have doubted whether we are to understand this as referring to fossil species which are extinct, as well as to recent species, or those which are similar to recent species. The phenomenon of motion as observable in the animal creation is dependent first upon the structure of the muscles whiCh are composed of parallel cylindrical fibres, filled with a pith, and tending in different directions suited to their required action, and which have both voluntary and involuntary motions, by the former carrying out the dictates of the will, by the latter acting for the good of the animal when his will is not active, as in the case of sleep, or where their action is required to stimulate the internal organs to increased operation. But it is dependent, secondly, upon the formation of the bones, with their joints, cartilages, and oily matter to lubricate them. And, thirdly, it is dependent on the nervous system, producing voluntary and involuntary action, and
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	23
the first terminating, some think, in the cerebral hemisphere of the brain, the other in the cerebellum. And, fourthly, it is dependent on the wings, legs, tail, or fins, with which the animal is furnished.
The creation of fishes is wonderfully adapted to the element which they inhabit. The air-bladder' within every kind but flat fish, which adapts their specific gravity to the specific gravity of the surrounding water, which, by its opening and closing, thus enables them to rise and sink at pleasure,—the conical shape of their heads, like the sharp bow of a ship,—the unctuous nature of their scales, diminishing friction,—their spherical shape, avoiding superincumbent pressure,—their muscular tail acting both like a rudder and like the screw of a screw-steamer, their fins like oars, their gills extracting from the water air for their support and then letting it flow away, their nictitating membrane by which their eyes are protected when necessary, and their peculiar power of both hearing and seeing beneath the water, are all instances of this adaptation. The creation of the mollusca, tes-tacea, crustacea, and spongy and coral tribes, is of course included in these verses. Moses, however, in v. 21, makes separate and distinct mention of whales, as if there was something very peculiar about them. And it is a curious fact that natural-
ists generally now separate the order cetacea to which they	z
belong, from fish, and place it among quadrupeds.r, They are
the class mammalia, which suckle their y oung, and, unlike the
case of fishes generally, warm red blood circulates throughout
their system by means of a heart ivith one ventricle. Without
deducing Hutchinsonian inferences from such facts they are
always pleasing to the Scripture student to contemplate. It
may be observed of birds that their faculty of flying, human art
has not yet been able to imitate. Birds are divided into several
orders : Accipitres, Passeres, Scansores, Gallince, Grallce, and
Palmipedes.
Ver. 24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the
living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and
beast of the earth after his kind : and God saw that it was
good. Having now given the Zoophytes (including the Echino-
dermata, the Entozoa and the Acalephce); the Pisces (including
1 See these facts treated at length by Sharon Turner, Vol. 1. Let. VIII.
24	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. I.
the Chondropterygii, the Plectognathi, the Lophobranchi, the Malacopterygii, and the Acanthopterygii); the Ayes (including the Accipitres, the Passeres, the Scansores, the Gallince, the Gralice, and the Palmipedes), and perhaps some of the Rep-tilia, as, for instance, the Saurians, and the Batrachia, also the Cetacea, belonging to the order Mammalia ; the Mollusca (including the Cephalopoda, the Pteropoda, the Gasteropoda, the Acephalce, the Brachiopoda, and the Cirrhopoda), and the Crus tacea which are an order of the division Articulata ; there are now left for this sixth period of the Mosaic account—Of the vertebrated animals, all the Mammalia except the Cetacea ; of the Reptilia, the genus Chelonia and the Ophidice, the Bimana and Quadrumana ; of the Articulata, the Annelides, the Arach-nidc e ; the Insecta (including the Aptera, the Coleoptera, Or-thoptera, the Hemiptera, the Neuroptera, Hymenoptera, Lepi-doptera, Rhipiptera, Diptera). This work, the effort of omnipotence, met with the matured approval of omniscience : for God saw that it was good.'
Ver. 26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness : and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
The fact that man's creation took place last in order, meets with a geological confirmation in the absence of all human remains previously to the diluvial strata, whilst the other animals abound in all the stratified rocks, commencing with the secondary ones, and some occur even in the transition rocks. The Creator had made this earth teeming with beauty and luxuriance to arise out of chaos, a perfect type of, harmony and order. He had so constituted its elements as that amid innumerable changes ever going on amongst them, they each preserved their proper
sphere.	He had filled its waters and its atmosphere, and
covered its surface with innumerable living beings, which should shew forth his glory, and at the same time enjoy perfect happiness themselves. He had created, and introduced with refer-. ence to our earth, the other heavenly bodies, those mighty orbs, many of which move so evenly and yet so noiselessly on in their orbits, and which plainly declare the glory of God,' while the
vast expanse or firmament sheweth his handy work.'	And
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	25
then there is a wonderful pause in the Divine operations—if indeed a succession of operations in the mind of the Eternal was for a moment possible. And He is brought before us by Moses as contemplating within himself the idea of something higher still—of a creature that could hold communion with the surrounding universe and with himself, and whose intellectual and moral being, pregnant with the reflection of nature, could contemplate Him, and in Him alone find ample to supply its vast capacities. And here for the first time the word of consultation and that of execution are distinct. It was not so, even with light, the beauty of the whole creation, or with any other work. Those were all created at once by a word. His mighty mind willed and they were done. Here alone the Almighty paused to consult before entering upon His masterpiece. And with whom ? not with angels ; for their being was derived and they are creatures themselves ; with whom He disclaims all consultation (in Isaiah xl. 12, 13, 14) ; and besides, we do not even know that they then existed, or if they did, that they were in God's image—but with His own co-eternal companions, and more especially with that being who was ' with Him as His daily delight, rejoicing ever before Him, and whose delight was with the sons of men.' In reply to those who assert that God spake here after the manner of kings, in the plural number, it is answered that in Moses' time there was no such custom, nor till long afterwards. Melchisedec, Pharaoh, Abimelech, Balak, Saul, David, and Solomon, all. speak in the singular. This pause here spoken of may aptly represent to us the almost infinite hiatus between man and all the inferior animals, the enormous chasm over which the Creator passed at this period of creation,—from the mere vital organism to the necessary and essential principle of life—to the eternal individuality involving the consequent responsibility of the human spirit. It is true that the theory of Lamarck would reduce this last and best and noblest of God's creatures to the mere level of the rest. It would make the difference between man and the monad or the mite to consist merely in a more perfect organization and development of matter, in a further expansion of the archietype of existence. With such persons to argue in a work like the present would cause too great a digression. Besides this has been far too effectually done by others to render any effort of the kind needed. The reader should be referred
26	NOTES ON GENESIS..	[CH. I.
to Lyell's Principles of Geology, Vol. II. Bk. III. ch. i. pp. 407425, Edit. 1835 ; and to that masterly work by Hugh Miller, called Footprints of the Creator, pp. 13-24. But of what nature was the mental proposition that passed, as it were, from God the Father to the Son, and perhaps to the Holy Ghost, at this time, which was thus expressed : Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ?' What was, in fact, the meaning of these words ?
Ver. 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he
them.	The word t‘73,7, says Kennicott is here rightly trans-
lated image, and signifies a just picture, or complete representa-
tion.	But lest this should be too sublime a boast for any
creature, the expression is immediately softened by the word rov-r, which signifies likeness, or resemblance ; and this is rendered still more faint by the prefixed preposition which signifies according to,' and in some agreement with.'
This phrase, the image of God,' is used in several different senses in Scripture :
In 1 Cor. xi. 7 ; Psalm lxxxii. 6 ; James iii. 9 ; Acts xvii. 29 ; and Gen. ix. 6, it has been commonly supposed to represent any dignity superior to the other creatures which man possesses. As used by St James and St Paul it evidently alludes to something which man did not lose at the fall, but even now possesses.
In Col. iii. 10 ; Eph. iv. 23, 24 ; Wisdom ix. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 15, 16 ; Matt. v. 48, it apparently refers to the moral perfection of man's being, although it cannot be limited to this in the passage before us, because man was not morally perfect, so far as he was liable to sin, which he was, in Eden.
In Sirach xvii. 3, 4, it relates to his dominion over the creatures, as implied in the latter part of the 28th verse.
In Wisdom ii. 23 it relates to his immortality. Gen. ix. 6 seems to imply this also.
Mr Maitland (in his Eruvin, Essay iii.) suggests that this image of God was an image of the visible form which Christ assumed, when he appeared to the patriarchs previously to his incarnation'. In his own image.' Septuagint, KaTebrova Oca.
1 vide Maitland's Eruvin, Essay m. p. 86.
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	27
Arabic, C.Wiy.ci?. Targum Onkelos, irt/73,1• Syriac, (3-thaL.;
(the word used in Acts xix. 35).	Vide Walton's Polyglot.
There have not been wanting those among the ancient fathers who have held that this image had reference to man's body, it being fashioned after the image of Christ's body, and this opinion seems to have been founded on the idea that the Deity possessed a body. Irenmus, Clement, Origen, and others made a
distinction between (thr) the image of God and (fl T) resem-
blance	,
to God—the first referring to man's innate faculties, the second to the exercise of those faculties. Gregory of Nyssen, Theodoret, and Epiphanius, all agree that it is difficult to determine in what this image consisted. Tertullian and Origen appear to have made it consist in man's innate intellectual properties, and in the freedom of the will. Socinus, and after him some Arminians, have referred it entirely to man's dominion over the other creatures. Others refer it to both the physical and moral image, the latter of which was lost ; and others again to either
of them.	That this power and dominion' of men over the
creatures, says Dr South', is not adequately and formally the image of God, but only a part of it, is clear from thence, because then he that had most of this, would have most of God's image ; and consequently Nimrod had more of it than Noah, Saul than Samuel, the persecutor than the martyr, Caesar than Christ himself, which to assert is a blasphemous paradox.' If it be replied to this, that when men are wicked their right to govern ceases, we may refer to Noah's charter in which Ham is equally invested with his brethren. Probably the image of God,' as predicated of Adam before his fall, consisted in the harmonious co-operation of judgment, fancy, feeling, and volition, all in due subordination to the voice of an ever-approving consciousness, producing as an effect of their joint action the most rich and chaste conceptions, the most extensive and judicious generalizations, the most brilliant and profound reflections, and the purest and most sublime moral acts, to which man is capable of giving birth : and as a result of this extreme beauty of his moral and intellectual developments, there existed a physical configuration and organization, fitted to carry out such high behests. And all this was
1 South's Sermons, Vol. z. p. 34.
28	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. I.
the impress of the Divine mind, produced on man by the effectual working and inspiration of his Holy Spirit, according to Job xxxiii. 4. Perhaps the best paraphrase to be found on this verse consists in those words of the Psalmist : What is man, that thou art mindful of him ? and the son of man, that thou visitest him ? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands ; thou hast put all things under his feet : all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field ; the fowl of the ails, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.'
In the image of God created He him. Milton observes', Had the image of God been equally common to them both, it had no doubt been said, " In the image of God created he them."' But St Paul explains that the woman is not primarily and im-
mediately the image of God, but in reference to the man.	The
head of the woman,' saith he, is the man' (1 Cor. xi.). He the image and glory of God, she the glory of the man ; he not for her, but she for him. Therefore his precept is, Wives be subject to your husbands as is fit in the Lord (Col. iii. 8) in
every thing' (Eph. v. 24). Nevertheless man is not to hold her as a servant, but to receive her into a part of that empire which God proclaims him to, not equally, but largely, as his own image and glory, for it is no small glory to him that a creature so like him should be made subject to him.
Ver. 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
These words contain an elliptical statement of two things :-first, the creation of the first man and woman ; secondly, the twofold blessing pronounced upon them consisting in two commands, each of which implied the communication of a power to obey them ; viz. the order to multiply and replenish the earth ; secondly, the order to exercise dominion over the other creatures.
With regard to the first subject, the ellipse is fully supplied by Moses, in the 7th, 8th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th
1 Milton's Prose Works, Vol. III. ; Tetrachorclon. Bohn's edition.
CH. I.1	NOTES ON GENESIS.	29
verses of the next chapter ; in considering the meaning of which this subject will again come fully before us. With regard to the first blessing pronounced, of multiplication, which is repeated to Noah, it appears that all mankind arose from this first pair. Now the Archbishop of Canterbury 1 has shewn, in opposition to those who assert that the different characters of the several races of mankind, are inconsistent with the idea of a common descent, and constitute a distinct species : first, that the varieties among inferior animals are quite as great, e. g. between different breeds of oxen, dogs, sheep, hogs, and horses ; secondly, that there is a tendency in nature to run into varieties2 of configuration, size, and colour (as in the case of plants as well as animals) as the result of climate, cultivation, nourishment, &c.; thirdly, that these last-mentioned and similar causes produce similar varieties amongst men (as may be seen in the different indigenous natives of America subject to different climates, in the varieties between the Arabs who wander about and the Shalluks who live in villages ; between mountaneers and the inhabitants of contiguous plains everywhere ; between the natives of Otaheite and New Zealand, both belonging to the same race ; between the different tribes of Morocco, or of Russia ; between the more and the less civilized of the same race, as, for instance, the Brahmins and the common Hindoos); and from the known tendency in the different varieties after intermarriage for four or five generations to return to the same model ; and, fourthly, that if we once deviate from Mosaic account, and assign several distinct origins to the several varieties, we should not know when to stop, so absurdly numerous would our distinct species necessarily become.
R. C.'Archbishop Wiseman' urges, that there is more difference between the mastiff and greyhound, or the wild boar and the common pig, than between the European and negro races ; that all the fowls and dogs in Guinea, as the effect of climate, are as black as the inhabitants ; that the sheep there have no wool, but hair ; that the same happens to the sheep in
1 Archbp. Sumner's Records of Creation, Vol. I. pp. 359-394; Appendix No. II., and Pritchard's Physical History of Man, Vol. 1. ch. ii.
2 Vide also Humboldt's Cosmos, upon this point, Vol. 1. pp. 362, 363.
3 Wiseman's Lectures on the Connexion between Science and Revealed Religion, Lect.
30	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. I.
the West Indies ; that in Angora the sheep, goats, rabbits, and cats, are alike covered with a long silken hair ; that dogs and horses, according to Bishop Heber, when carried from India into the hills are soon covered with wool, like the shawl-goats of that climate ; that among men known to be of the same race there are still very odd varieties, as, for instance, the family of the
porcupine man,' existing through three generations, and the `Colburn family,' possessed of supernumerary fingers ;—all of which facts tend strongly to corroborate Archbishop Sumner's argument.
De Candolle i says that there often exist greater external differences between animals of the same species, e. g. the spaniel and the Danish dog, than between animals of distinct species, e. g. the wolf and the dog.
Dr Pritchard2 has shewn that tribes of animals which belong to different species have essential differences to which the different tribes of men have no parallel ;—in respect to the duration of life, the periods of utero-gestation ; the facts relating to reproduction; in respect to diseases peculiar to each species ; in respect to the laws relating to hybrids ; and in respect to peculiar characteristic instincts. He has also shewn that the varieties of colour, and even of complexion existing in the human species find their counterpart in different tribes of domestic animals of the same species ; that the differences of shape and conformation in the human species are analogous in kind to diversities of structure existing between the same races of domestic animals. He is also of opinion that the same varieties in the form of the skull exist between the horse and the ass, which are proximate species ; and that the same power of propagating permanently individual varieties exists, in brutes of the same species, as in man.
Mr Horne remarks, in his Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures (Vol. T. ch. iii. sec. 2. § 1. p. 160), that there is a colony of Jews who have settled at Cochin on the Malaga coast from a very remote period, of which they have lost the memory, who though originally a fair people from Palestine, and from their customs preserving themselves unmixed, are now become as black as the other Malabrians, who are scarcely a
1 Physiologic Vegetale, Tom. n. p. 689, quoted by Dr Pritchard.
2 Phys. Hist. of Mankind, Bk. u. Vol. I. pp. 105-376.
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	31
shade lighter than the natives of Guinea, Benin, or Angola. At Ceylon also the Portuguese, who settled there only a few centuries ago, are become blacker than the natives ; and the Portuguese, who settled near the Mundingoes about 300 years since, differ so little from them as to be called negroes, which they resent as a high indignity.
Dr Pye Smith' also argues from the known resemblance of most distant nations, in religion, traditions, arts, and modes of life, and every important characteristic (language alone excepted), to each other, that even when their speech most widely differs, all mankind are derivable originally from the same source. He also argues that not only habits of life and difference of climate and of food, continuing their influence through many generations, but something of an artificial nature, akin to the native American system of flattening the skulls of children, may perhaps help to account for the variations in type existing between the Mongolian, Caucasian, and Iranian skulls. Adam Clarke (in his Commentary on Gen. xi. 26) mentions thirteen customs and usages, both sacred and civil, which have prevailed in all parts of the world, as a proof that mankind were originally all of one stock. Of these, nine of the most striking are (1) the decimal notation, (2) the week of seven days, (3) the use of sacrifices, (4) the consecration of temples and altars, (5) the institution of sanctuaries or places of refuge, and their privileges, (6) the giving of tithes for the use of the altar, ('7) the notion of legal pollutions, defilements, &c., (8) the universal tradition of a deluge, (9) the universal opinion that the rainbow was a divine sign or portent. To these may perhaps be added the universal reception of marriage as a religious rite. All these arguments tend to prove that mankind were originally derived from one pair.
It was indeed a wonderful provision by which this effect of the multiplication and perpetuation of the human race has been secured from one pair. In order to produce this result it was necessary that there should exist a balance between males and females ; and as a larger number of males die annually than females, the balance must be preserved by the existence of a larger number of male births. This is found from the statistical
1 Scripture and Geology, p. 348, Note E.
32	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CFI. I.
tables of Europe to have been the case ; and as far as estimates have been formed, it is also said to be borne out by Asiatic and American statistics. If it be said, Why create a pair at all for this purpose ? Why not let the father give birth to the child ? It may be answered that without pretending to fathom all the reasons which the Divine Being had for this or any other provision, one good effect of it may be seen in the distinct kinds of parental care and tenderness which the offspring meets with from the father and mother, each conducive to their separate end. And another good effect of it will appear on a moment's reflection upon the state of a world where all the fierce, brilliant, and active passions of man existed unrelieved by the passive emotions and gentler qualities of the other sex. In confirmation of the account contained in this verse, St Paul tells the Athenians that
God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell upon the face of the earth' (Acts xvii. 26). And Jesus Christ tells the Jews that from the beginning God made them male and female' (Mark x. 6 ; Matt. ix. 4, 6) ; although the first of these texts is explained so as not to oppose their opinion by the advocates of different stocks of the human race. In fine, then in obedience to this charter the universal species of mankind has had a gradual increase in spite of war, pestilence, famine, flood, conflagrations, celibacy, and other obstructions. In order to establish this position, we need only refer to the history of any great nation of the civilized world. Professor Hitchcock remarks upon this : The command given both to animals and men " to be fruitful and multiply" implies the removal of successive races by death ; other wise the world would ere long be overstocked. A system of death is certainly a necessary counterpart to a system of reproduction ; and hence when we 'know the one to exist, the presumption is very strong that the other exists also. There is no escape from this inference, except to call in the aid of miraculous power to preserve the proper balance among different races of animals, by preventing their multiplication. Such an interpretation I am always ready to admit when the Scriptures assert it. But to imagine a miracle without proof merely to escape a fair conclusion is, to say the least, very wretched logic. God never introduces a miracle when he can employ the ordinary agency of nature for accomplishing his purposes. Nor should we resort to one without the express testimony of the Bible, which on this subject is our only source of evidence' (Religion of
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	33
Geology, Lect. nu. p. 80.) See more on this subject in note on ch. iii. v. 19.
The grant made to man was a grant of dominion over the other animals. He was not only to replenish the earth,' but to subdue it, and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.
What then was the object of this dominion ? Not it would seem to supply men with food, for there had been no grant of animal food made to him then, food being specially mentioned in the next verse, but omitted here, and given to Noah with regard to the creatures afterwards (Gen. ix. 1, 2, 3), although I suppose he was omnivorously and therefore carnivorously constituted then as now—not to supply him with clothing, for he did not need this until he knew that he was naked—nor to help him in his labour and tillage of the earth, for he had none apparently, that would require such aid, till after the curse. There must therefore have been a right or title to these things given to him prospectively, by that God ' who seeth things that are not, as though they were,' in anticipation of his future needs, and for the preservation of his species, which would otherwise have been overwhelmed by the other animals. As to the manner in which it was exercised and carried on, we are not anywhere precisely informed, but it is just possible that all intelligent beings had at first a mode of communication with each other, perhaps by some sense which we have now lost,—some such mode of sensation perchance as appears now in the annals of animal magnetism, or mesmerism. It seems that there was not then the same insubordination in the brute creation as now ; judging from the descriptions given by Isaiah of the return of that happy time (chap. xi. 6 ; lxv. 23). Perhaps there existed a power and skill in man to compel their subordination in a different manner from man's present power in that respect, arising from the ascendancy which mental superiority would easily attain over brute force if it could once find expression intelligible to the brutes. But, according to Bishop Sher-lock's opinion, this power would be no more than man recovered after the flood ; for if we compare Gen. ix. 2 with Gen. i. 28, -this second grant is certainly as full and explicit as the first one.
Ver. 28 (continued). And God said, Behold, I have given
3
34	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CIL I.
you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed ; to you it shall be for meat. Kennicott, instead of translating the 1 here and' (as our version has it), renders it
but,' which certainly brings out the meaning better : I have given you every herb, but the fruit of the tree shall be to you for meat. After the fall, man was condemned to eat the herb of the field. There is, however, one interpretation of these two verses which ought not to be passed over in this place. Hei-degger (Historia Patriarch. _Exercitat : xv. § 9. Vol. I.) thus translates the passage : Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed (to you it shall be for meat); nay, also, every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, with every green herb for meat.
He considers L) the mark of the accusative, not the dative case.
But in all the instances where L7 is so used,' says Archbishop Magee, it stands combined and related in such a manner as to give a new modification to its ordinary and general meaning. But surely in the present case no such modification exists. On
the contrary, the very force and analogy of the t7 seem to determine the word to its usual dative signification,' being connected
with both the datives in ver. 29 by the particle	The word
X	also is used in the same sense in ver. 29 as the mark of the
accusative. Archbishop Magee also tells us that Aben Ezra, Jarchi, and nearly all the Jewish writers agree in referring the grant of animal food to the time of Noah'. The instances
quoted by Noldius of L) with an accusative are Gen xxiv. 14 ; Ruth i. 18 ; Josh. xxii. 29 ; Isai. liii. 7 ; Jer. xii. 15 ; Psalm v. 3 ; Job x. 19 ; Nehem. viii. 4.
Ver. 30. This is thought to contain the grant of vegetable food to the whole animal creation, and from it some have concluded that all the carnivorous animals equally with man at first fed on vegetables, but were prospectively created with carnivorous capacities. Others think that this means, it is given to all animals that will make use of vegetable diet. There
1 Magee, On the Atonement, Note 52.
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	35
is one question more, moreover, with regard to the command to man to increase ; and it is this. As man consists of two parts, soul and body, did this command refer to the propagation of both soul and body, or only of the body ? and if it did, in what manner ? There appear to have existed three hypotheses with regard to the propagation of the human race. One was that this blessing only referred to the propagation of the body ; and that the soul of each human being came always immediately from God. Another was, that the soul of each human being was propagated with the body. A third was, that all the souls were created at first by God, and united from time to time by Him with the bodies of men'. On this theory hung the doctrine of transmigration of souls as held by several ancient philosophers, and by many Jews. But the theory was no more necessarily connected with it than the theory of an intermediate state after death was with Purgatory. Each of these three opinions had their advocates. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Ambrose, Hila-rius, Hieronymus, most of the schoolmen, held the first, and even Melancthon. Augustine held this doctrine at first, but repudiated it afterwards. Luther would not dogmatize upon it. It seems to be opposed to the doctrine of original sin ; for how could a just God create continually afresh impure souls ? as these two doctrines when held together imply. It was maintained strongly by the Pelagians. The second opinion was held by Liebnitz, who thought that the souls of children existed within their parents' souls, as perfect, distinct, living beings, like seeds do, as perfect organisms in plants ; and it was held also by others who maintained that children's souls existed in their parent's souls only conditionally, and were handed down at the will of their parents. Tertullian appears to have held this doctrine, and many of the Western Church. It agrees well with the doctrine of original sin, and with the fact of constant resemblance, moral and intellectual, between parents and their children. The third opinion of the preexistence of the soul was held by many of the Jewish Cabbalists, by Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine, and the Mystics. It appears to have come originally from the East. The Brahmins held that souls were an eternal
1 Vide Priestley's Dissertations on Matter and Spirit, Vol. II.
36	NOTES ON GENESIS.	tCH. I.
emanation from the Divine essence, or, at least, that they were produced a long time before the creation of the world ; and that in this pure state they sinned, and from that time were imprisoned in the bodies of men and beasts, each according to its desert. Some of these taught that the souls which animate every mortal form were delinquent angels in a state of punishment. Zoroaster appears to have taught the descent and transmigration of human souls from realms of light into human bodies for purposes of probation.
Ver. 31. And God saw everything that he had made. He surveyed muter in its infinite varieties, included in the three kingdoms, animal, vegetable, and mineral. He saw at a glance all the chemical and mechanical combinations of which it was capable, which it had then assumed, or ever would assume, either in this world or in any of those innumerable worlds with which space is peopled by the great First Cause. He marked created mind in all its successive gradations, beginning perhaps from the vegetable living principle, through the animal instinct of the
creature that moveth,' up to the human soul, which was the masterpiece of the divine workmanship, so far as this earth is concerned ; He surveyed all his creation, and saw reflected from each minutest molecule of matter, and each thought indicative of mind, his own radiance reflected back. In the minerals with their dazzling brilliance, in the metals with their malleable pliancy, in the mineralized vegetable substances with their highly useful properties, in the contiguous situation of those strata which prove necessary to be brought together by man in the preparations which he is obliged to institute before they are ready for his use, God saw his own goodness reflected back. In the vegetable world which, by its perfect adaptations to the conveniences, the wants, and the pleasures of man, addresses itself to all his sensations, and through these to his most internal emotions ; which gratifies his appetite, his intellectual taste, his sight ; which affords a medicinal cure to the physical evils caused by sin, which protects him from cold by its combustible qualities, God saw his superintending care. In the animal kingdom, abounding with wonderful mechanism, contrived with a view, not merely to satisfy his necessary wants, but even his pleasures and tastes ; in the curious and highly-wrought machinery of man's frame, from which his best lessons in mechanical art and
CH. I.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	37
architectural science have been learnt ; in the exquisite perfection of the nervous system ; in the beautiful chiselling of the human countenance developing superior intelligence and high moral attribute ; in the habits, instincts, and properties, of the inferior animals, all tending, more or less, to human usefulness ; in all this, God saw his care for man and benevolence to the world. And in the amplitude and variety of created forms, organized and unorganized, in forms varied from the enormous continents, mountains, oceans, and plains, to the smallest insect that with burnished wings flits about in the beams of the noonday sun ; in the larger animals with their colossal might which mocks the impotency of human effort ; in the trees and plants with their gigantic stature and impressible forms of growth and multiplication ; in the minerals, with their enormous masses which act upon one another with an agency which man can neither control nor even understand ; in the chemical elements, whose effects are rapid as they are powerful, God saw his own mighty power. In the vast and brilliant Sun ; in the silver Moon, as she sails throughout the vault of heaven, diffusing her mild and borrowed radiance around ; in the ever restless unfathomable ocean ; in the bleak and grand hills, with their cloud-capped summits ; in the mighty torrents, and fierce hurricanes sweeping everything before them, God saw traces of his own omnipotence. In the multiform and profound contrivances of creation, whether prospective or for present use, he saw his own mighty wisdom resplendent. How then could he refrain from pronouncing this Creation, as it first came forth fresh from the hands of the Almighty Artificer, the impress of his own royal and infinite mind, to be 'very good?' He did not indeed pronounce them to be good in the sense of absolute independent and essential goodness, (for in this sense Christ said (Matt. xix. 17), There is none good but one, that is, God :) but as emanations from the first good, first fair. When Moses,' says Dr Cudworth, tells us of God pronouncing every thing to be " very good," we are to understand the meaning to be that it was " the best," the Hebrews having no other way to express the superlative'.' This encomium is omitted only on the second day, but pronounced twice on the third. It is therefore conjectured either that the clause at the end of ver. 8 belongs properly
1 Cudworth, On Freewill, Sect. 14, p. 53, Allen's edition, 1838. -
74-4--
o4
38	NOTES ON GENESIS:	[CH. II.
to ver. 10, or else the latter part of ver. 10 belonged to ver. 8 ; a slight transposition having taken place. Many have disputed much as to what was God's ultimate design in creation—whether it was His own glory or the happiness of his creatures ? But most probably it was twofold, and these two objects, in fact, coincide.
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. The second and third chapters of Genesis have been supposed by some not to be genuine, for two reasons,
because in these two chapters only the phrase 1:11"07N
is used, whereas throughout the other it is simply I:V*7N,
because the author of them (ch. ii. 5-9) seems to mention the operation of second causes, which would appear to be omitted altogether in ch. i. 27. To this it may be answered, that the accuracy of the first assertion is doubted, and the second establishes nothing. And to this shadow of internal evidence against them, the whole body of external evidence in the case is opposed. Some have asserted that this chapter, containing the account of the institution of the Sabbath, was of Babylonian origin, and of a much later date than the rest, but, unfortunately for this hypothesis, the reason assigned for the institution of the Sabbath in Exodus xx. 10, 11, is, that God blessed it at the Creation because he then rested from his work. And all the hosts of them. nit•z3,7 comes from z•z4, to arise,' and signifies here
any thing that arises or makes its appearance either in earth or heaven, and thus it affords another argument for the optical nature of the whole description. From this God was called Kvpios /cti3i3c"toe, the Lord of hosts' (Rom. ix. 29 ; Isai. i. 9 ; Jam. v. 4 ; Deut. xxiv. 15 ; Isai. vi. 3 ; Rev. iv. 8). He claims dominion over the hosts as His creation (Deut. xxiv. 15). The angels, however, are sometimes called the hosts of heaven' (1 Kings xxii. 19) ; as also the hosts of God (Gen. xxxii. 1, 2);
the	heavenly hosts' (Luke ii. 13) ; also the sun, moon, and
Cam. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	39
stars are called the hosts of heaven' (Deut. iv. 19 ; Isai. xxxiv.
4 ; Jer. xxxiii. 22 ; viii. 2).
Ver. 2. The LXX., the Samaritan, and the Syriac versions
all have 1, which stands for six.	Kennicott suggests that 1
might easily have been changed in the MS for T, which stands for seven. He therefore translates, On the sixth day God ended his work.' Others retaining the seventh' (and among them several Jewish translators) render it on the seventh day, God had ended,' &c., making the verb in the pluperfect. But Dr Geddes and Dr Boothroyd both say that this will not agree with what follows'.
Ver. 2. He rested, ;Inv). This, of course, does not imply
here any weariness on the part of God (for each creation was
the effect of a word), but only cessation.
Ver. 3. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified
it.	Kennicott translates this thus : And God caused man to
bless,' (7111), being, he says, in the Hiphel conjugation, and He caused man to worship Him on the seventh day ty-71
(being also in the Hiphel) ;	upon,' which meaning
Noldius gives it. In favour of this interpretation he refers to Gen. xxiv. 35, where he translates instead of he is become great," He hath made him great,' which certainly renders the sentence much more clear. Blessed and sanctified. In the
Targum Onkelos,	In the Arabic,	a;	1?.5.
In the Vulgate, benedixit et sanctificavit. In the Septuagint, otiXcryncrev Ka; try/act-6v. Vide Walton's Polyglot. Londini 1657. Vol. T. Because that in it he had rested from all his work which he had created and made. Archdeacon Paley remarks upon this text, that God does not affirm that the Sabbath was then given to man, but that it was given to man for that reason2. With reference to this verse there appear to exist three opinions : the first, that it contains a precept given to Adam before his fall, for his guidance and observance ; the second, that it contains a precept given to Adam immediately after his fall for his observance and that of all his posterity ; the third, that
1 Vide both their 'Commentaries,' in loco.
2 Paley, Moral and Political Philosophy, ch. vii. Bk. v.
40	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. II.
it was given to him not as a command then in force, but by prolepsis or anticipation. Of these last some consider that it came into force as early as the time mentioned in Genesis iv. 26. Others at the time mentioned in Exodus xv. at Marah ; others at the period referred to in Exodus xvi. at Sin ; others in Exodus xx. at Sinai. In support of the opinion that it was given by way of prolepsis, it is said that the connexion of subjects introduced the mention of the Sabbath in this place ; and not the connexion of time. These affirm that it was a Jewish institution originally, because God says (in Exodus xxxi. 17) that the Sabbath shall be a sign between Him and the children of Israel for ever, and in Ezekiel xx.12, 'Moreover also, I gave them my sabbaths to be a sign between me and them.' But the fact of its being a sign to the Jews in one way does not prove that it was not a sign to the patriarchs in another way ; or to any one else.
The following texts are referred to as cases of narration by anticipation in Scripture : Gen. i. 27, male and female created he them, ;' Gen. xii. 8, on the east of Bethel' (which name was not given it till 100 years afterwards) ; Exod. xvi. 34, before the testimony' (when as yet there was no ark, tabernacle, or testimony) ; Exod. xvi. 35, The children of Israel did eat manna forty years' (which forty years were not then nearly fulfilled).
Proceeding on this principle of interpretation', some assign its first institution to the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, and refer to Nehemiah ix. 13, 14, in support of this assertion. But the words here translated madest known' unto them thy Holy Sabbath, might as well be rendered recommended,' or reinforced ;' and so it perhaps only refers to the solemn reinforcement of the command made at Sinai, punishing the violation of it with death. And the language of the fourth Commandment evidently refers to a previous institution. It is not Remember to keep holy the Sabbath-day,' but, Remember the Sabbath-day to keep that holy.' The words, nor the stranger that is within thy gates' shew the universality of the command, whereas the stranger was not required to be circumcised, but he was required to keep the Sabbath on pain of death. Lastly, the reason of the command refers it to God's resting after the Creation : Be-
1 Kennicott, Dissertation I. On the Tree of Life, p. 125, Edition 1747.
NOTES ON GENESIS.	41
cause in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and rested on the seventh day and hallowed it.' Besides, Exodus xvi. 29 and 30 decides the point.
Others again refer it to the time when the manna was given, mentioned in Exodus xvi. But all the expressions used in this description (especially v. 23, To-morrow being the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord ;' v. 26, which is the Sabbath ;' v. 28, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws ?' and v. 29, because the Lord bath given you the Sabbath') refer to it as an old institution, and as one with which the people were well acquainted. Moreover, it is not likely that God would sever the fourth Commandment from the rest of the decalogue, and institute it only a fortnight before the others.
Others again think that it was given at Marah, as related in the 15th chapter of Genesis. And some of the Jewish writers have supposed that what they call the seven precepts said to be given to Noah, and three others, were all included in the statutes' mentioned in the 26th verse, of which they think the Sabbath was one. But they give no proof of their assertion. And the words statutes' and ordinances' are very indiscriminately used in Scripture, as, for instance, in the 119th Psalm. At any rate the words here employed do not of themselves imply the institution of the Sabbath. And Jeremiah (chap. vii. 22, 23) tells us expressly that the command given here was only a general one. This passage cannot refer to the exact time of the Exode, for: then God instituted the passover, which is frequently called a sacrifice' (Deut. xvi. 5, 6), nor can it refer to what occurred at Sinai, for then God spake to them concerning the whole of burnt-offerings and sacrifices.' It therefore most probably referred to what occurred at Marah.
Others, lastly, have thought that the Sabbath was instituted at that period mentioned in Genesis (chap. iv. 26), or previously to it, when men began to call upon the name of the Lord.' But for this much proof does not seem to be offered. See further on the passage in the note on Gen. iv. 26.
Those who maintain that this command was given to Adam immediately after his fall, appear to rest their opinion on the idea of Dr Lightfoot, that Adam fell on the sixth day ; and certainly it is more likely to have been given to man for immediate use in his fallen state, than in his perfect state. Those
42	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. II.
who think that it was given to Adam, support it by the following arguments : first, that it was equally or more useful, in the
earliest times, when there were no means of handing down doc-
trines but oral communication, that Adam and his successors might declare to their own families the wonderful works of God,
by assembling them on the regular return of that day. Secondly,
there appears to have been the same necessity for the institution of the Sabbath under the patriarchal economy, as when the
Israelites were gone forth into the wilderness ; namely, to preserve them from the surrounding idolatry. Thirdly, that Christ's words are, The Sabbath was made for man,' i. e. say they, 'for mankind,' and not for one particular nation. But the first and second of these two reasons seem not to prove the point, and the third appears to be an unfair inference from the words quoted. They affirm, fourthly, that there are traces of its existence in patriarchal times'.
This last assertion is opposed, however, to the opinions of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenmus. Although Justin Martyr speaks of the Jewish Sabbath as not being known to the patriarchs. Epiphanius seems to incline to the opinion that it was known to Adam. In support of this opinion its advocates refer, first to the computation of the period of weeks among all nations in the earliest periods, which they say must have arisen out of a divine revelation, (for nature would not have suggested this division of time, as she did in the case of months, which arose out of the revolutions of the moon, or of days or years, which arose out of the earth's diurnal or annual revolutions), and which must have been given to mankind before the dispersion at Babel, having arisen from some one common source ; but the computation by weeks might have arisen out of the Lunar quarters, and if so, it would naturally suggest itself to different nations however separated. But they refer, secondly, to the case of Cain and Abel coming to make their offering in process of time' (Gen. iv. 3) ; or, at the end of the days,' as the margin has it. But this does not necessarily imply at the end of seven days. The -same expression, however, occurs in 1 Kings xvii. 7, where it does not signify at the end of the year, for the end of the year will hardly suit with the matter in hand. If the year began with Tisri the
Heylin's History of the Sabbath, ch. iv.
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	43
oblations mentioned would be too late, if with Nisan they would be too soon, there being at those times no fruits to offer. And besides for the end of the year,' another phrase is used in Gen. xvii. 21, and Exod. xii. 41, (;1=1 r1NP). They refer, thirdly, to Job ii. 1, and i. 6, where we read, And there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord.' This day they think was the Sabbath. It might have been so, but it does not necessarily follow from the words that it was. They refer, fourthly, to the case of Noah, who is several times represented (in Gen. vii.) as waiting yet other seven days ;' and this they think was in order to consult God about his several doings on the Sabbath. This is not a necessary conclusion. They affirm, fifthly, and with great reason, that if there were no traces of its observance in early times, it would not necessarily follow from this that it did not exist ; for the rite of circumcision is not alluded to from Joshua v. :to Luke ii., a period of 1450 years ; no mention is made of sacrifices from the time of Abel to the flood, a period of 1500 years, or from Jacob's arrival at Beer-sheba to the Exodus, a period of 200 years at least ; that there is no mention of the Sabbath in the books of Joshua, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 Kings ; that the ordinance of the red heifer is not mentioned from the time of the Pentateuch down to St Paul's time. It is thought by some that Sunday,' or the first day of the week was observed as a Sabbath by the patriarchs, and that the Jews changed it to ' Saturday,' because on that day they left Egypt, but that Christians returned to it again after our Lord's resurrection. And certainly of the original observance of Sunday there are still traces in the East. Another argument for the universality of sabbatical institutions, and for the fact that they are connected with this verse, appears to arise from the prophecy of Isaiah, contained in ch. lvi., which speaks of its observance as a mark of the last times, although this argument is not necessarily conclusive; for the passage may be connected with a temporal restoration of the Jews; or it may be intended typically. It is a curious fact that the institution of the Sabbath is omitted in Acts xv. 20. Perhaps, however, the reason for this omission is assigned in ver. 21. Vide Rom. xiv. 5.
Ver. 3. Created and made.	Created by making,' elabo-
rando, Rosenmiiller. And whether our Sabbath was instituted at
44	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[cll. II.
this time or not, one thing we may certainly infer from these verses, that the Almighty paused in His operations, and that then ensued a calm over all creation, the type of an eternal Sabbath, in which Adam stood forth as nature's great high priest, and interpreted its praise of the glory of its Maker, in the communion with that awful Being, which he was ?privileged to enjoy. Some Jewish commentators consider rI'Vrh7 to give the sense of 'completion '
when added to	The oldest Rabbinical commentators render
it continue acting,' applying it to the works of preservation and to the daily recreations which occur.
Here our first chapter ought to have been made by our translators to terminate, with the close of the seventh day. We now enter upon the supplement to the cosmogony, which is com-prized in the remainder of the second chapter, which may in fact be looked upon as a specific and explanatory commentary on the first chapter.
Ver. 4. These are the riiiL)in (or generations') enarra-
tiones antiquitatis remotce. Rosenmiiller. He also tells us that r17N refers, always in Genesis, to what follows, not to what pre-
cedes. Perhaps Such are the,' &c. would give the meaning. Histories, some think, were called genealogies,' from the fact of their being preceded by them : e.g. Gen. vi. 9 ; Matt. i. 1.
In the day.	Here the word	is evidently put for
a period of six days. See the note on Gen. i. pp. 13-17.
Ver. 5. Perhaps this observation is to teach us that all the life that is in the creation is immediately from God. It speaks even of vegetable life as being placed in the herbs before they grew.
From this verse I conclude that God created the whole vegetable world in the seed and in embryo, with all its properties, propensities, and peculiarities ; and, that when He pronounced it all very good, His omniscient glance detected them all in the germ. In fact, His omnipotence which caused them all to exist, implied His omniscience which saw them all ready for
operation there.	He that planted the ear,' says the Psalmist,
' shall He not hear ? and He that made the eye, shall He not see ?' The seed then contained in embryo all the phenomena of cellular tissue, with its several propensities under certain conditions, of producing vascular and woody tissue, together perhaps
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	45
with other spurious elementary organs, such as intercellular passages, receptacles of secretion, air-cells, and raphides, &c.
For the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth. Moisture is necessary for the growth and development of the vegetable world, it is habitually absorbed by the spongioles of the roots, holding as it does certain properties from the surrounding soil in solution, it then becomes sap, and performs the functions of ascending circulation, and when it reaches the leaves, (like the blood in the lungs of animals) it is partly decomposed, and receives and fixes fresh gases, after which process of assimilation it descends. Now this process has its beginning in water. Hence the necessity of rain. Bishop Patrick, however, was of opinion that every plant and herb was created at once in a state of perfection, each having its seed within it.
Caused it to rain. `1't i1. Hiphel of iltpr Cognate j/a.v
Rain,' says Mrs Somerville, is formed by the mixing of two masses of air of different temperatures ; the colder part by abstracting from the other the heat which holds it in solution, occasions the particles to approach each other and form drops of water, which becoming too heavy to be sustained by the atmosphere, sink to the earth by gravitation, in the form of rain. The contact of two strata of ah of different temperatures moving rapidly in opposite directions occasions an abundant precipitation of rain.' The fact is, that rain is one of the electrical phenomena, owing probably to a certain condition of the atmosphere. If fossil rain be a fact, this passage can only refer to the period of creation here described, and not to a previous period at all.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 11!;, cognate with 1'N. Arabic
vapour.' It is certain that plants have also the power of imbibing the heavy dew by means of the surfaces of the leaves, in addition to the sustenance which they receive through their roots. It is not impossible, therefore, that they might have grown considerably previously to the existence of rain, when there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.' Some have thought that this state of things continued until the Deluge, which signification the words themselves certainly do not at all destroy. If so, this will
46	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. IL
account for there being no rainbow before the flood, if indeed the inspired narrative is so to be understood.
Ver. 7. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man became a living soul. This verse and verses 18-25 of the present chapter may be looked upon as supplementary to verses 26 and 27 of chapter i.
The Arabian tradition of man's creation is, that God sent the angels, Gabriel, Michael, and Israfil, successively to fetch nine handfuls of earth from different depths, of different colours (whence some account for the various complexions of mankind). But the earth apprehending man's future disobedience and his entailing the curse upon herself, sent them back to represent this, when God sent Azrael, who executed his commission, and that on this account he became the angel of death, or of the separation of soul and body ; that this earth was first kneaded by the angels, and afterwards fashioned by God, and then left forty days, or forty years, to dry (Sale's Koran, notes to Chap. ii.)
Man, tIN. (Adam, in Sanskrit, means the first,' and is a
name of the first man.) Some have argued that because this is an appellative noun, and not a proper name, as is evident from Gen. v. 2, we are at liberty to consider that more than one specimen of the genus homo, or 1:1K, was formed at this time.
But the account contained in ver. 21-25, seems decidedly opposed to any such supposition. It arose out of an anxiety to obviate the supposed difficulty of the descent of all mankind from one pair (Vide Chap. i. ver. 28).
For such a supposition, however erroneous we may think it, must in fairness be allowed to militate against no scriptural doctrine, or moral truth. There would be a first and second Adam just the same ; the first being sinful, the second holy. The transmission of original sin would be no greater mystery than it is now. Christ might be equally the redeemer of all the races of mankind ; while at the same time it would obviate the difficulty (if difficulty it be) of the necessary supposition that sisters at first were taken for wives ; and it would account for what is said of Cain, implying that he joined another race of men, as some think (Gen. iv. 14, 15, 17, 26). Still it would
CH. II.]	• NOTES ON GENESIS.	47
tend to weaken, perhaps materially, St Paul's argument for the
human sympathy of the Redeemer with Gentiles.
The word trIN some think is derived from trIN red,'
T 7	r 1
because of man's ruddy countenance ; others, because of the red earth out of which he was supposed to be made. But the basis of his bones appears to be lime, which is white. Others again derive it from ritiN, the earth,' as signifying his earthly
- T
origin. 'Breath of life.' This description is perhaps like the other descriptions of Moses, optical, and refers only to what comes under the cognizance of the senses.
(t"ri Pt VI.1)	The exact force of this expression it is
difficult to compute. The question, whether man consisted of two or three parts, of body, and soul, or of body, soul, and spirit
C1=, bap ;	4,ux7,; and rlrl, .71-v ei3,ua.), has been much
discussed. This question is intimately connected with others concerning the freedom of his will and concerning his immortality. Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr supported the
threefold nature ; Tertullian the twofold.	The controversy
seems to turn upon such texts as 1 Thess. v. 23 ; and Heb. iv. 12, &c.
And man became a living soul. (irrien) a living animal,'
some think would better give the force of it. The word living, in our translation, has various meanings assigned to it in Scripture (e. g. Gen. vi. 19 ; vii. 4) ; where it is used in the same sense as here : (Gen. xxvi. 19 ; Numb. xix. 17 ; Cant. iv. 15 ; Zech. xiv. 8 ; John iv. 10); where it is applied to springs of running water. It occurs in (Psalm xxvii. 13 ; lvi. 13 ; lxix. 28; cxvi. 9; cxlii. 5 ; Matt. xxii. 32) in most if not in all of which passages it signifies immortal beings. It occurs also (John vi. 51, 57; 1 Pet. ii. 4 ; Jer. x. 10 : Dan. vi. 20 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 26 ; Matt. xvi. 16 ; Acts xiv. 15 ; 1 Thess. i. 9, &c. &c.) where it signifies, as applied to God, the necessary self-existent Being who gives life to all others.
Certainly, however, this living soul,' or, at any rate, this living principle' is something distinct from mere matter in its origin as also in its effects. Whether or not it is something that thinks, doubts, determines, chooses, consents, perceives, as is the case in most men ; at any rate it is something that is liable to sensations. Now not one of these powers is necessarily inherent
11-e • if -6.e-,
48	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[C11. II.
in matter as such, for if it were so, a stone would be equally sensitive, or would perform any of those operations equally with man, or one part of man's body would be equally sensitive with another, the hair of the head equally so with any iseme which is obviously not the case. Bishop Warburton tells us 1 that the word living does not imply immortal here, because St Paul tells us (1 Cor. xv. 45-49), that the first man Adam was made a living soul, the last a quickening
spirit.'	Here we find the apostle,' says he, so far from un-
derstanding any immortality in this account of man's creation, that he opposes the mortal animal Adam to the immortal making spirit of Christ.' Dean Graves, however, and many others with
him, think that immortality was included here.	When,' says
he, of all animated beings it is asserted of man alone, that God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and that man became a living soul2; we cannot much dissent from those commentators who conceive the breath of life thus immediately derived from God, partook of the immortality of its divine author, and that the living soul which man thus acquired, deserved that title much more eminently than the animating principle of any of the brute creation, all of which are described as formed with such different views, and as sharing so inferior a degree of their Creator's favour.' (Graves, On the Pentateuch, Lect. iv. part 3, p. 293, &c.)
' This divine indwelling spark in man,' remarks Frederic Von Schlegel, the heathen themselves notwithstanding the opinion about the Autochthones, recognized in the beautiful tradition or fiction of Prometheus ; and many of their first spirits, philosophers, orators and poets, and grave and moral teachers, have in one form or other, and under a variety of figurative expressions, borne frequent, loud, and repeated testimony to the truth of a higher spirit, a divine flame, animating the breast of man.' (Philosophy of History, Lect. i. p. 73. Bohn's Edition.)
I Divine Legation, ice. Bk. vi. sec. 3, Vol. ii. p. 432.
2 Targum Onkelos has N55nnrn15 (i. e.) a spirit enjoying the capa-
T:	:
C
city of speech. Arabic Version :	V L, `a rational soul.'—Vide
Walton's Polyglott. in loco.
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	49
It would be well to remember, however, that whatever is here predicated of man, whether his present capacity of living as a mere animal, or his future capacity of living as an immortal being—whether his physical functions and sensations merely, or his instinctive propensities, or his intellectual and moral phenomena, or his divine origin—the fact that he is possessed of all these is not for one moment questioned in the text, either directly or indirectly, while on the other hand it is both implied and asserted in Gen. i. 26, 27. Whatever sense we assign to the text, the human soul still remains a monument of its Creator's greatness. No one who reflects for a moment on the intricate and beautiful mechanism of his own spirit, who ever bethinks him of the beautiful adaptation of all the parts of the spiritual machinery to each other, of their varied capacities, and the joint effect of their mutual co-operation, can for one instant doubt that man possesses a higher and nobler nature than any other animal. While his Memory calls up the past, and endues it with all the reality of the present, and quietly fulfils its appointed task when all the avenues of approach to the mind by outward sensation are locked up, as it were, his Fancy, that power by which the mind launches forth into a new world, freed from the limitations necessarily attending on time and space, embodies the future by anticipation into the present, and realizes not only new permutations and combinations of previous existences, but even new creations of her own : these his Reason compares and arranges. And in subordination to this intellectual triumvirate are the processes of perception, conception, reflection, and generalization carried on. Then again man's affections,in all their inherent beauty, of harmonious action, such as love, joy, fear, and hope ; his volition, by which he impels matter to obey his dictates ; and, finally, his power of conscience placed on a throne by his Maker so as to sway the whole moral economy, complete this higher nature by which, as a whole, he soars above the brute creation, even although their faculty of instinct appear in solitary instances to mimic or even to rival the human gifts of memory and reason.
Ver. 8. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden. Planted. Bishop Warburton supposed that this occurred on the third day, when vegetables were created. Mr Faber, on the sixth day, just before the Creation of man. Trees, or groves, or gardens, were afterwards set apart for the worship
4
50	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. IL
of Jehovah as we read in Gen. xxi. 3 ; and after that, to the worship of false gods, Isaiah lxv. 3, lxvi. 17 ; 1 Kings xviii. 19. This word occurs in Joel ii. 3 ; Cant. iv. 13 ; Deut. xi. 10.
A garden. p, 1 Kings xxi. 2. From this word garden,'
some have inferred that it was God's original design, that while the other animals should live in a state of wildness, man should exist in a condition of tranquillity. Some affirm that this term p is never found but in modern Hebrew, but it occurs in
Job viii. 16 and Cant. vi. 11.
Eastward. trJp..p. This is rendered by St Jerome, the
Vulgate, the Chaldee Paraphrase, and the Syrian, from the
c,
beginning,' or in the beginning.' Cognate with 1443.3, 'before-time.' It occurs several times in both senses in Scripture.
In Eden. M, vim, t;Sovq. This is written 113 in (Gen.
ii. 8, 15 ; iii. 23 ; iv. 16 ; Isai. li. 3 ; Ezek. xxviii. 13 ; xxxi. 9 ;
Joel ii. 3), and	in all other places in Scripture when the
original locality is not referred to.
It has been argued that Eden is a locality, because it is • said in Gen. iv. 6, to be east of the land of Nod ; but it is not at all certain that Nod' is an actual locality.
It is not impossible that all those traditionary notions of a golden age which we find among all nations, among the nations of Tartary, of the South Sea Islands, of North and South America, Kamtschatka, of Greece, and Rome, all had their origin in the original Paradise or Eden in which God placed man.
iim). means pleasure or delight. It is rendered by eSeµ
in the Septuagint of Gen. ii. 8, 10 ; ii. 15 ; iii. 24 ; and Ezek. xxxi. 9, 16, 18. Targum of Onkelos (Gen. ii. 8) has " in loco voluptatis." (Vide Walton).
Others think that it means perpetual abode,' and the word
is so translated in ch. ix. of the Koran. That Eden and Paradise are sometimes used as synonymes we may conclude from these words (Rev. ii. 7) : ' the tree of life in the midst of the Paradise of God.' Christ (Luke xxiii. 43) and St Paul (2 Cor. xii. 4) both speak of Paradise as a place of intermediate if not of final rest and enjoyment. LXX. (Gen. ii. 8) has wapaSeccrov ev ESGIA.
rIlt occurs in Neh. ii. 8 ; Eccles. ii. 5 ; Cant. iv. 13 ; and
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	51
wcipaSeicros in Xenophon, Econ: iv. 13. It was probably within Eden.
Hence the tree of life was placed in the centre of it, of which, if a man eat he should live for ever. Heden in the Pahlevi signifies a 'place of rest.' Udy an in the Sanscrit signifies a garden. As to the site of Eden,' Abarbanel, Manasses Ben Israel, Maimonides, Eben Ezra, place it on the equinoctial line. Ephrem the Syrian, Moses Bar Cepha, Tatian, Jacob of Valentia, placed it in the other hemisphere, as well as St Augustine, Procopius, Gezaus, Bede, the Essenes, and others. Some have even fancied it to have been Jerusalem. Eden is given as the name of a part of Mesopotamia in 2 Kings xix. 12 ; Isaiah xxxvii. 12 ; and is a pleasant vale in Damascus in Amos i. 5.
From these two passages in Amos and Isaiah it appears that a nation existed whose rulers were the posterity of some one called Eden, and who gave their name to the country. But whether this was the same place as the Garden of Eden, does not clearly appear. Asiatic traditions mostly place it in the region of the Caucasus and Caspian Sea. Frederic Von Schlegel suggests that the original source of the primaeval paradise may have been purposely obliterated by the Almighty by means of a volcanic eruption, similar to that one which has taken place with regard to the Dead Sea.
Milton, in his Paradise Lost (Book VIII. line 303), represents it as on some mountain-top, and (in Book iv. line 209, &c.) he says :
`From Auran eastward to the royal towers Of great Seleucia, built by Grecian kings, Or where the Sons of Eden long before Dwelt in Telassar.' .
Burnet (in his Theory of the Earth') propounds the opinion that there was a perpetual equinox and unity of seasons at that time, arising from the non-obliquity of the ecliptic. He thinks that this was not altered until the Flood, and that this alone will explain the longevity of the antediluvians, and the non-existence of rain then (Gen. ii. 5, 6), and therefore of the rainbow too ; and that these circumstances producing a constant spring, added to the unexhausted freshness of the primaeval soil, would give
1 Book ii. ch. ii.
4-2
52	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. Jr.
the vegetable kingdom much greater fertility than it has ever enjoyed since. The pleasantness of Eden, he thinks, appears (from Gen. ii., xiii. 10, and Ezekiel xxxi. 8) to have existed in trees and water. But he does not offer any astronomical reasons for the arbitrary supposition that the inclination of the earth with reference to the sun, was altered at the Deluge. The pleasantness of Eden however, consisted principally, of course, in
God's presence.	In thy presence is fulness of joy, and at thy
right hand are pleasures for evermore.' That God communicated with man in Eden before his fall, is evident from vv. 16, 17, 19. And if He appeared to instruct man in His will in those minor matters, alluded to in these verses, much more must He have communicated with him on the greatest ones of the nature, as well as consequences of disobedience mentioned in v. 17; of the nature of his great enemy—the reward of obedience, and other matters, which will be more fully considered in the notes on ch. 3. Bishop Horne thinks that the first Eden being so often called the Garden of God' and the Garden of the Lord' in Scripture (Ezek. xxviii. 13 ; Gen. xiii. 10) implies that it was a place where God specially manifested his presence. He further thinks that some things in the physical appearance of Eden were typical of others in the tabernacle, and in the temple and in the second paradise of God ; e. g. trees (in the tabernacle and temple), Psalm lii. 8 ; xcii. 13 ; i. 3. And water (in the tabernacle), I Cor. x. 4 ; Dent. viii. 15 ; and in the new temple, Ezekiel xlvii. 1, 9, 12 ; Rev. xxii. 1; (and in the heavenly temple or paradise of God) Rev. xxii. 1 and 17.
And there he put the man whom he had formed. From this it appears that Adam was created out of the garden, and then subsequently placed in it. Bishop Warburton assuming that Adam and Eve were created without any intervening period, thinks that the same occurred with regard to Eve. But this assumption is not a necessary one. If the notices contained in this chapter be arranged in the order in which the events actually occurred, it was not so. And if it were not, he could have no anteparadisaical state ; and consequently Adam could not have lived more than a day' previously to his translation, since they were both confessedly created on the sixth day.
Bishop Warburton adduces as proofs of the anteparadisaical state of man, Gen. i. 29 : Replenish the earth and subdue it,'
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	53
and Gen. i. 29, Behold I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree... to you it shall be for meat 1,' whereas the language in Gen. ii. 16, 17 is quite different. But this last instance might be answered by the supposition that the trees of paradise were the only ones created at first ; and that they were left to spread and multiply by natural existing causes.
The rendering that I would most humbly suggest, of which
the original certainly is capable, is this	The Lord God planted
a park from the beginning for pleasure (i. e. of man), and there He placed the man whom he had formed.'
1 is used in the sense of for, on account of, in Gen. xviii. 28 ; Exod. x. 12 ; 2 Kings xiv. 6 ; Jonah i. 14.
Ver. 9. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
There exist three opinions with regard to the description contained in this verse : first, the opinion which views the narrative as an allegory.
Secondly, the opinion which interprets it literally, assigning to two trees the peculiarity of possessing certain qualities which the others had not.
Thirdly, the opinion which also interprets it literally, but assigns to one tree only this peculiarity.
Let us consider each of these three opinions very briefly. The first opinion appears to have been held by Origen, who looked upon the whole history of Adam in his fall as merely a type of what always occurs. Scotus Erigena also threw great doubt on the literal interpretation. Clement, Peter Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas, seem to have admitted both the literal and the allegorical interpretation2. There are some who interpret the whole narrative contained in these two chapters figuratively. These may be fairly asked, why should the history of the creation be interpreted literally and that of the fall figuratively, when they both occur in the same book, and no reason is given why a different principle of interpretation should
1 Book vii. ch. i.
2 Vide Hagenbaeh's History of Doctrines, Vol. 1. p. 156.
54	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[cll. II.
be applied to the latter subject ? But others interpret part of this latter narrative figuratively and part literally, which seems to be a most arbitrary proceeding. They consider, for instance, the account of the tree of knowledge an allegory, whilst they look upon the other trees as real vegetable productions. But if the others were literal trees, so was this, on all principles of just interpretation, for they were all equally said to grow out of the ground,' in the verse before us.
The second opinion is the commonly received one, which considers two trees superior in some respects to the rest ; viz. the tree of life' (par excellence), and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.' The advocates of this opinion tell us that God, in all his intercourse with man, has made use of some outward sign or perhaps means. Thus Moses did all his miracles with his rod ; Elisha ordered Naaman to wash seven times in Jordan; God appealed to the senses of the Israelites in thunder, fire, and smoke on Mount Sinai ; and in a fiery bush to Moses ; He descended visibly on his Son as a dove; He instituted water, and bread, and wine for his two sacraments. Why should he not have instituted two trees in Eden as emblems or, perhaps, means of life and death ?
Bishop Horne' thinks that the tree of life' was one especial material tree, producing material fruit, good for the body, but set apart as a symbol or sacrament of that spiritual food which nourishes the soul, thus affording it not a mere natural immortality, but a spiritual one, i. e. supporting the divine life. His lordship, however, does not explain how he separates these two (viz. natural and spiritual immortality), which are apparently inseparably connected together. In support of its sacramental nature the bishop refers to Rev. ii. 7, and Rev. xxii. 14.
That natural immortality at least was connected with this tree, some think fully appears from Gen. iii. 22. By natural immortality is meant not the necessity of never dying, but the total absence of a necessity to die. In support of this view of the case which refers man's natural immortality to the feeding on a certain fruit, and to shew that it was the belief of all nations, they refer to both the Odyssey (197, 199), and the Iliad (Book xix. line 38, 39), where the Gods are represented as main-
1 Sermons, Nos. 2, 3, 4, on Gen. ch. ii. vers. 8, 9, 17.
Cii. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	55
taining their natural immortality by feeding on nectar and ambrosia, which mortals never were allowed to partake of. Thomas Carlyle in his Hero-worship, speaking of the Norse Mythology, says, I like' too that representation they have of the tree Igdrasil. All life is figured by them as a tree. Igdrasil, the ash-tree of existence, has its roots deep down in the kingdoms of hell or death ; its trunk reaches up heaven high, spreads its boughs over the whole universe : it is the tree of existence. At the foot of it in the death kingdom sit three nornas, fates,—the past, present, future ; watering its roots from the sacred well. Its boughs with their buddings, disleafings, events, things suffered, things done, catastrophes, stretch through all lands and times. Is not every leaf of it a biography, every fibre there an act and word ? Its boughs are histories of nations. The rustle of it is the noise of human existence, onwards from of old. It grows there, the breath of human passion rustling through it ; or stormtost, the stormwind howling through it like the voice of all the Gods. It is Igdrasil, the tree of existence. It is the past, the present, and the future ; what was to be done, what is doing, what will be done, the infinite conjugation of the verb to do. Considering how human things circulate, each inextricably in communion with all, how the word I speak to you to-day is borrowed not from Ulfila the Mesagoth only, but from all men since the first man began to speak. I find no similitude so true as this of a tree ; beautiful altogether, beautiful and great. The machine of the universe, alas ! do but think of that in the contrast !' Does it not seem as if this Norse Mythology had borrowed its tree of life from an interpretation, either correct or erroneous, of the Scriptural account ? There is mention, moreover, of a tree of life, the fruit of which conferred immortality, both in the Zend books of Persia and in the Brahminical mythology of India.
But if the tree of life was one tree par excellence,' that made man immortal by tasting it, it either did so by once tasting it, or by constantly doing so, and it did so absolutely or conditionally, or else it was no tree in particular, but a series of
trees.	If the tree of life, argues Dr Kennicott, conferred absolute immortality by being frequently tasted, it must have
1 Hero-worship, ch. I. pp. 32, 33.
56	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. II.
been either by its own single virtue, or else by its virtue in conjunction with the other trees. In the first case, the other trees would be useless ; in the second, this tree loses its superiority. If it conveyed absolute immortality by being once tasted, how could Adam, having once tasted it, become afterwards mortal ? And what more probable than that he should have tasted it ? If Adam were created conditionally mortal, with reference to his tasting the tree of knowledge, would God have placed in his way another tree, the partaking of which would neutralize the conditions of the other, by rendering him absolutely mortal ? Again, if we suppose only one tree by which life was to be supported, how, asks Dr Kennicott, could Adam's posterity have come from all parts of the earth (had he continued innocent) to gather fruit from it ? But to this it might be answered, that God would not make arrangements for an event which he foreknew would not occur. But he asks again, If it were one especial tree in particular in the middle of the garden, according to our version, why should a guard of angels be placed at the end of the garden, instead of in the middle of the garden immediately around the tree itself ? But surely to this it may be replied, that it was done in order to keep man out of the pleasant garden altogether after he had sinned, and thus shewn himself unworthy to tenant it any longer. The last objection is, that God would not be likely to annex immortality irrevocably to the partaking of a certain tree, so that even He himself could not alter it, as Gen. iii. 22, on this supposition would seem to imply. But why should He not, since He could provide so easily for man's not getting to this tree after he had sinned ? Dr Kennicott having raised these objections to the notion of its being one especial tree, propounds his theory that all the trees of the garden were trees of life.' And this is the third opinion mentioned in page 53.
His translation of Chap. iii. 22, is : And now, lest he put forth his hand and take again of the trees of life, and eat, and so live on all his days.' To this idea the following objections have been raised :
(1) That it does not sufficiently appear, on rational principles, how Adam in Paradise was conditionally immortal, and afterwards naturally mortal, unless it was connected with the medicinal effect of one particular fruit. Against this it is urged :
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	57
that sin and death, and therefore holiness and life immortal, are connected together in Romans V. 12, as cause and effect. Now sin consisted in disobedience to the command, apart from any medicinal effect of the fruit. In the ordinary course of things the eating of all the other fruits would preserve man in his original state of immortal life, by merely supporting those conditions under which he lived. But this answer does not appear to dispose of the objection satisfactorily.
It is objected that the word 11, is singular and not plural, in ver. 23 and 24, chap. iii. To this it is answered, that the singular word ry is twice rendered trees' in our translation, the sense of ver. 2 and 8, chap. iii. requiring it to be so translated.
Kennicott thinks that the sense of the word is rather Lig-num than Arbor, and that wherever the article or the context does not require the singular it ought to be translated in the plural.
A third objection to it is, that if we do away with immortality, as connected with a particular tree, we must put a forced meaning on the words for ever,' in Gen. iii. 22. But
the words t7L7t/7 often mean for a limited time ;' e. g. in - :
Exod. xxi. 6 ; 1 Sam. i. 22 ; where it signifies only for a man's life-time.'
A fourth objection is to this word 1:7.1 being rendered
again' (in Gen. iii. 22), but its derivation seems to be r, abundavit,' and in this sense it occurs in 1 Sam. xxiv. 12. In further support of this theory it is urged that all the trees of Eden were spoken of as peculiarly excellent, as appears from Joel ii. 3, and Ezek. xxxi.
The fifth objection is that one especial tree of life is alluded to in Prov. iii. 18, and in Rev. xxii. 1, 2 ; but this does not seem at all certain, for, in the language of Solomon, every thing that is desirable is called life ; e. g. Prov. x. 11; xiii. 12, 14 ; xv. 4 ; xvi. 22.
If Rev. xxii. 1, 2, refer to it, we must consider that there were two trees of life in Paradise, and not one, each bearing twelve kinds of fruits. It, in fact, alludes to Ezekiel's vision (xlvii. 1), and not to Paradise at all. If Ezekiel alluded to the account in Genesis, then, according to him, there were many trees of life,' or trees of meat,' as he calls them.
58	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[on.
Dr Kennicott translates the latter part of this ninth verse as
follows	the trees of life, and in the midst of the garden the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil.' And he quotes
Gen. xxii. 4 ; and xxviii. 6, as cases where a similar transposition of the is necessary to the sense ; also 2 Cor. xii. 7, which he
clears up by similarly transposing civa and placing it before cirryNos.. That the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the midst of the garden, appears from Gen. iii. 3.
In support of this theory it may be observed, that trees of life' generally meant in Scripture trees that had a salutary effect' merely, as in Prov. iii. 18.
Lastly, there is, another theory of the tree of life,' which supposes it to be one especial tree, the fruit of which was not produced ; but that it was revealed to Adam, that after a while it should produce fruit of which whosoever eat should live for ever ; that he might eat of it if he persisted in his obedience ; but that if he disobeyed be would expose himself to death before that time, and so cut himself off from ever tasting it. Perhaps the appearance of the tree was excellent, the fragrance sweet, the blossoms gay and promising. This opinion of Jonathan Edwards seems to differ from the sacramental theory of Bishop Horne on the one side, while it is opposed to the theory of Dr Kennicott on the other side.
Ver. 9. And the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Knapp and Jahn among the Germans appear to think that this only meant according to the object of the Hebrew and oriental idiom, the tree of moral distinctions.' Compare Isaiah ix. 15, where the phrase to know good and evil,' is used in that sense. Thus also Horace, Epode, it. 2, 44, and Homer, Odyssey, xvm. 227, 228 ; xx. 309, 370.
Bishop Bull seems to consider that it refers to the practical knowledge of good and evil only, which Adam by eating it would gain. But this knowledge is attributed to God, Ye shall be as gods,' (iii. 5) who could have no practical and experimental knowledge of evil ; and this is not only the sugges-stion of Satan, but the acknowledgment of the Almighty, who says, The man is become like one of us, knowing good and evil.' Bishop Horne thinks that it means merely, shall be able to judge between good and evil.' He thinks that it is used in this sense in Isaiah vii. 15 ; 2 Sam. xiv. 17 ; Heb. v. 14.
	‘-1-#'1 11;4-	•
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	59
As to the question how the eating of this tree was to convey the knowledge of good and evil. If there were any virtue, as the Rabbins say, in this fruit to act through the physical frame upon the understanding, why should this tree be forbidden, since it would tend to the perfection of man's nature ? It was therefore intended to teach true wisdom in a moral way only, on the principle laid down by St Paul, Rom. viii. 7. Then comes the question why so trivial an action should be made probationary in a matter on which so much depended? Why a test having nothing moral in it should be appointed to try man's moral obedience ? To this it is replied that tests of obedience were often imposed, which were not moral in themselves. Thus when Abram offered up his son, the angel told him, Now I know that thou fearest God.' Such too were most of the observances of the ceremonial law, which acquired force simply because they were commanded, being in themselves of no force whatever. Bishop Horne dwells upon the action of eating being in all ages symbolic of religious affection, as when St Paul denominates a man according to whether he eat of the Lord's table, or of the table of an idol. He also thinks, with Vitringa, that Adam, having the advantage of a divine personal instructor, would learn from this command, as associated with it, God's absolute sovereignty, and man's utter dependence ; that in Him and in what He had commanded was his chief and only good, and His will therefore should be his only law ; that according to his obedience in this probationary state would be his ultimate happiness in another. He thinks that its object was to represent the creature or the world as opposed to the Creator, things visible in opposition to things invisible, and the trial was whether he should walk by faith' in God's command, or by sight,' and choose the fruit which was 'pleasant to the eyes,'—.or not—and that it was a type of all man's future trials (Deut. xxx. 15; Prov. vii. and viii.; Rom. viii. 6,13). Archbishop Bing thought that Adam's ignorance of the nature of things was no imperfection in him, for the design of knowledge is to be useful in directing the affairs of life, and this knowledge God imparted to Adam by constant revelations ; for instance, he was not even left to choose his own diet (ch. i. 29). Hence, in the knowledge of what was good and evil he was not left to himself, but was dependent on God for it, and while he referred to Him he could never know evil, being always directed to good.
60	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. Ir.
Nor was this intellectual dependence any more a mental defect than his physical dependence on the air for breath, or the sun for warmth, or the earth for food, was a bodily defect, but by this arrangement he had the benefit of infinite knowledge without the trouble of acquiring knowledge at all ; since dependence on our own knowledge and consequent increase of it is suitable to a state of partial alienation from God.
Some hold the opinion that every tree of the garden was not in fruit at the same time, that some fruit were to ripen in one month, others in another month ; and that when ripe the fruit would drop, for purposes of food to man, and for seed to renew the growth of their kind, according to Gen. i. 11, 12. This is how the trees are represented in Ezekiel's vision.
Ver. 10. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden ; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The word here translated heads means not branches, but sources. Some think therefore that four sources met in one river in Eden, and went out of it in one river. But this is contrary to the text. Mr Granville Penn thinks that these verses (10-15) were originally only a MS. note, which some transcriber inserted into the text. Many of the ancients who took Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, and Ganges to be the four rivers here mentioned, thought that their present sources were only secondary ones, and that the original Ones were in another orb where Paradise was.
Ver. 11, 12. The name of the first is Pison : that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good : there is bdellium and the onyx stone. It has been said that as Pison is that river which flows by ancient Chaldea, that Moses would probably be ignorant of the productions of so distant a country : to this Le Clerc replies, that if in the time of Jacob companies of merchants traded from Gilead (Gen. xxxvii. 25) to Egypt, why might not merchants from Chaldea trade there 400 years after ? And why might not Moses, who was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,' know all about these countries ? Thus this assumption would appear to be altogether gratuitous. E. F. Ro-senmiiller appears to think that the Pison was the Phasis of Iberia, and that the land of Havilah was Colchis. The Col-chian Phasis yielded gold, and led to a gold country. The Argonauts repaired here to carry off the golden fleece.
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	61
It is a curious fact that Havilah or Chavilah, as it ought to be written, is the same as Cholch in the Hebrew, 1-471rt, omitting the usual points. The ancient Colchis includes Mingrelia, and extended from the Black Sea to Georgia. Two countries and people of this name are elsewhere mentioned (Gen. x. 7, 29 ; 1 Sam. xv. 7), but these belonged to Arabia. Wahl thinks that by the Pison is meant the basin of the Caucasus, or its rivers generally.
And the gold of that land is good. This seems to imply two things ; first, that when Moses wrote, gold was an object of acquisition, if not long previously ; and, secondly, that the renewed earth after the Flood was the same earth as before the Flood, inasmuch as Moses here speaks of a particular region, as existing before, which region in his time contained gold. This would be opposed to that theory concerning the Flood, which makes the former dry land to have become submerged, and the former ocean bottom elevated. With regard to the gold said to have existed in that region, whether gold was an object of search previous to the Deluge it is impossible now to determine, but it seems probable that it was. The Egyptians and Phoenicians, since the Flood, appear to have been the earliest gold-finders on any extensive scale. It is more abundantly found in the quartzose and slaty rocks which are of the primary and transition class, or in their debris spread out on the sides of mountains, and washed down in the beds of rivers. In the basins of rivers at the foot of the Himalayas, in Russia, Caubul, and Asiatic Turkey, it is now found ; all of which localities, especially the two last, are contiguous to the basin of the Caucasus, where the land of Havilah is supposed to have been. (Vide Wyld's pamphlet on the distribution of gold throughout the world.) The Hebrew
word used here for gold is =:11, cognate with the Arabic
.
In Job xxviii. 15, 16, 17, 19, gold is five times mentioned, says Rosenmiiller, and expressed by four different Hebrew words,
1,11, nbp,	1b (in Psalm lxviii. 14 ; Proverbs iii. 14 ;
T T	•
viii. 10 ; xvi. 16 ; Zech. ix. 3). The Hebrews got all their gold from Arabia—from Sheba and Ophir (1 Kings ix. 28 ; x. 1-4, 11 ; 2 Chron. viii. 18 ; ix. 1, 10 ; Ps. xlv. 10 ; Isai. xiii. 12 ; 1 Chron. xxix. 4 ; Job xxii. 24). But Mr Wyld in his map does not mention Arabia at all as a gold country ; from this one
62	NOTES ON GENESIS.	Lem
would be led to suppose that all the accessible gold of Arabia had been worked out by the ancients.
The bdelliuin was probably a gum used for burning as incense ; it gave out, when burnt, a rich perfume. Bochart, however, thought that it meant pearls, because they were found at the head of the Persian gulf.
bre. Some think this is the onyx, others the beryl. The
Alexandrian version of the Septuagint gives XLOos o wpwrivos, the leek-green stone or Chrysopras.' The Hebrew word
is translated ovuxtop, in Exod. xxviii. 19 ; xxxix. 11, by the Alexandrian version. There are several different kinds of onyx, as the Sardonyx, Chalcedonyx, Memphitonyx, &c., according to their different shades of colour, or the regions whence they are brought.
Ver. 13. The name of the second river is Gihon : the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
Some think the Gihon or Jihon to be the Oxus ; others the Araxes. It was most probably the latter ; both of which take their rise in the Caucasus, and flow towards the Caspian Sea, or the lake of Aral. The land of Ethiopia is called Cush in the original : this word seems to have answered to the word Ethiopia,' as including all the country within the torrid zone.
Ver. 14. The name of the third river is Hiddekel. This is generally supposed to have been the Tigris. The castle of Nimroud is about the middle of its course. It empties itself into the Persian gulf. It goeth toward the east of Assyria. A difficulty arises here, viz. that the country generally known as Assyria lays to the east side, and not to the west of the Tigris. Some translate mrp before Assyria.' Jarchi paraphrases
11nkrtit1p by '11C1NVITI'llth, on the eastern district of Assyria.
This river Iliddekel seems to have derived its name in all languages from the celerity of its motion. In Hebrew it is de-
rived from	sharp,' &c.,	swift.' Vide Pliny, Mist.
Nat. vi. 27. Tigris, in the Median language, signifies an arrow.' In the Zend and Pahlevi it is derived from a word
which means swift.' In the Persian it is called	which
means an arrow.'
And the fourth river is Euphrates. This river rises in
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	63
the mountains of Armenia, and empties itself into the Persian gulf.
If that theory of the Deluge be correct which supposes that it was produced by an obtrusion of the bottom of the ocean and
a lowering of the dry land, and that which is now the land was
previously at the bottom of the ocean, of course all the pains which have been taken by travellers in identifying exactly
existing rivers with the scriptural account will at once be rendered unnecessary, what was Paradise with its rivers now being at the bottom of the ocean. But even if this be not the case, it is quite possible—nay, very probable—that the flood would greatly alter the course of rivers, even if it did not destroy existing ones, and create new ones altogether.
Ver. 15. And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Some, after Bishop Warburton, have thought that Adam and Eve were created originally subject to death, and that immortality was conferred upon them, at this period, on their admission into Paradise, as a free grant. It is thought by many that the first state of Adam in Paradise was as different from man's present cultivated state as the babe from the full grown man. Others conceive that Adam was created and placed there with all his noble faculties in full operation. The first opinion seems most likely to be true. But we shall see more of this que.stion as we proceed with the narrative.
From this verse we learn that the original life of man was not one of idleness, even before the curse was pronounced ; and accordingly his future life, when he is restored to the second Paradise of God, he has no reason to suppose will be so either ; but will probably be like that of the angels, an active life.
Ver. 16, 17. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat : but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it : for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Bishop Bull thinks that, from the first covenant made with man before the fall, mentioned in these verses (which contained a threatening, and by implication a promise), and which held equally after the fall, although the conditions of that covenant were not the same as 'afterwards, as would appear from
64	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. II.
Gen. iv. 7—eternal life was guaranteed to him on certain conditions, and that if he had not sinned he would never have died. He thinks that Adam had a natural law, and a positive revealed law ; that this natural law is alluded to in Romans i. 19, 20 ; ii. 12, 15. He thinks that this right to immortality was founded in, and annexed to, the last or revealed law ; for if it had been founded in the first or natural law, the last would have been
superfluous.	He thinks that the right to an eternal life of
happiness was conditionally founded in the revealed law, and superadded to him by his Creator ; he thinks that, by laying a restraint upon his natural (Gen. iii. 6) and (antecedently to the precept) lawful appetites, a general intimation was given to him, to call him from the animal to the divine life, and to she w him that his true felicity consisted more in obedience than in animal gratification ; and to caution him against that inordinate curiosity which is mentioned in Ecclesiastes vii. 29—that in fact the precept was a bridle to the deliciousness of his sense, and a check to the curiosity of his reason,—and, virtually, a first calling of Adam from a state of nature to a state of grace, as St Augustine also thinks. He considers that Paradise was to Adam a type of heaven, and that the never-ending life of happiness promised to our first parents, if they had continued obedient, and if they had grown up to perfection under that economy wherein they were placed, should not have been continued in the earthly paradise, but only have commenced there, and have been perpetuated in a higher state : and that after such a length of probation as seemed good to the divine Wisdom, they should have been translated from earth to heaven. His lordship quotes Justin Martyr, Tatian, 1renteus, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Methodius, Athanasius, Basil, Augustine, Prosper, and Petrus Diaconus in favour of this opinion. He thinks that Adam even in his state of integrity, needed a supernatural power in order to enable him to obey the Divine command1.
That in this state of probation in which man was placed, the inducements to, and advantages of, obedience were very great, is evident ; thus eminently chewing forth the benevolence of his Creator in placing him in such a condition. In Eden he wanted
1 Bull's State of Man before the Fall, pp. 1092-1109, Works, Vol. in. Edition 1713.
CA. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	65
nothing to complete his comfort or his happiness, so long as he refrained from the forbidden fruit. Every thing that was necessary for his bodily sustenance or his mental enjoyment were supplied in profusion around him, and in the revelations of God constantly made to him.
In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, or dying thou shalt die,' nItrolit, ,moriundo morieris ;' and this
literal translation of the original is more expressive of the event. For Adam did not surely die in the day that he ate thereof, but he began to die from that very day ; every succeeding day bringing him nearer to the grave, and many years afterwards his death was consummated.
Mr Faber' thinks that these words agree ill with Bishop Warburton's theory, that man was created originally mortal, because these words imply the possession of immortality by man previously to their being uttered ; and that as no time subsequent to man's creation is mentioned when this gift was bestowed, it must naturally be referred to the period of his creation. He also thinks that this notion disagrees with Rom. vi. 23 ; v. 1221; vii. 5, 10, 13 ; viii. 2, 6 ; 1 Cor. xv. 20, 21; James i. 15, all of which passages represent death as a punishment for sin. But that might become a punishment afterwards, which was not so at first, from the fact of its becoming a degradation from subsequent increased privileges ; such privilege perchance as man did not possess in the anteparadisaical state. Jonathan Edwards thinks that this expression denotes not only the certainty of death, but the superlative extremity of it, as including the second death, referred to in Rev. xx. 14. This form of expression is used to convey certainty in Solomon's threatening to Shimei (1 Kings
37), and from this probably our translators have been led to render it Thou shalt surely die.'
Ver. 18. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
This verse is an exposition of ver. 27, ch. i. Loneliness was the first thing that God decreed to be not good.' Every thing was very good.' Adam was not alone,' as regarded his maker ; nor alone' as regarded the angels,' or the beasts,' but alone'
On the Three Dispensations, Vol. T. Bk. T. ch. ii.
66	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. II.
as regarded woman. Some refer this only to the fulfilment of the blessing of multiplication. But it most probably refers to a loneliness of mind as well. I cannot refrain here from quoting that powerful and extraordinary passage of Milton on this subject':
No mortal nature can endure either in the actions of religion, or study of wisdom, without sometime slackening the cords of intense thought and labour, which, lest we should think faulty, God himself conceals from us not his own recreations before the world was built : " I was," says the Eternal Wisdom, " daily his delight, playing always before him.' And to him indeed, Wisdom is a high tower of pleasure, but to us a steep hill, and we toiling ever at the bottom. He executes with ease the exploits of his omnipotence, as easy as with us it is to will ; but no worthy enterprise can be done by us without continual plodding and wearisomeness to our frail and sensitive abilities. We cannot therefore always be contemplative or pragmatical abroad, but have need of some delightful intermissions, wherein the enlarged soul may leave off awhile her severe schooling, and like a glad youth in wandering vacancy may keep her holidays to joy and harmless pastime ; which as she cannot well do without company, so in no company so well as when the differing sex in well resembling unlikeness and most unlike resemblance, cannot but
please best, and be pleased in the aptitude of that variety	
By these instances, and more which might be brought, we may imagine how indulgently God provided against man's loneliness ; that he approved it not, as by himself declared not good : that he approved the remedy thereof as of his own ordaining, consequently good ; and as He ordained it, so doubtless proportionably to our fallen estate he gives it, else were his ordinance at least in vain, and we for all his gifts still empty-handed. Nay, such an unbounteous giver we should make him, as in the fables Jupiter was to Ixion, giving him a cloud instead of Juno ; giving him a monstrous issue by her, the breed of centaurs, a neglected and unloved race, the fruits of a delusive marriage ; and lastly, giving him her with a damnation to that wheel in hell, from a life thrown into temptations and disorders.' Now beautiful and eloquent as this passage undoubtedly is, and specious as the inference is with which Milton concludes, and which it has not been
1 Milton's Prose Works, Vol. III. pp. 331, 332.
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	67
thought necessary to quote here, the latter seems to me to fall to the ground when we consider that it is built on the foundation of the expression, a help meet for him,' which is not at all in the original.
Meet for him,	tanquam coram eo.'
The original here,' says Milton, is more expressive than other languages word for word can render it ; but all agree in thinking effectual conformity of disposition and affection to be hereby signified, which God, as it were, not satisfied with the naming of a help, goes on describing another self, a second self, a very self itself.' I must confess I cannot see all this in the word 11.1=.
Ver. 19, 20. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air ; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them : and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.
This knowledge of language is rightly placed here, because it was necessary that man should have the power of expressing himself, in order to understand the communications of God relative to the tree of knowledge, as well as necessary to enable him to communicate with his partner when she was created. Now man's intellect hardly shews his superiority in the scale of being more than his powers of expression do. His power of speech is as far superior to the medium of communication existing between the lower animals by signs, &c., as his reason is superior to their instinct. They have perhaps greater capabilities for sound itself and flexibility of voice, but not the power of expressing the analyses and compositions, the varieties and combinations, abstractions and concretions of thought, by analogous permutations of sound. Language, as a medium of communication, was the great means by which God's mighty purposes with regard to man were carried out—by which prophecies were uttered—by which communion with himself and with man existed—by which God's commands were delivered, and his Gospel proclaimed. In order to accomplish this, a peculiar formation of the voice, lips, throat, and mouth were necessary in the speaker, and a wonderful and delicate organization of ear in the hearer, and an adaptation in
5-2
68	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH.
the atmosphere to the conveyance of necessary sounds, and the
absorption of all others.
That is a graphic epithet so constantly employed by old
Homer, Atepo7ros. avepunros•'	Language,' says the Chevalier
Bunsen, is evidently the earliest, as well as the grandest, monument of man. It will be clear, on the slightest consideration, that all rational consciousness, all the later creations of the human mind, in the different nations of the earth, and in our own days especially, are based on language and dependent on it. If this be true of all individual nations, why should it not be so of man-
kind collectively ?	It will be universally admitted, that chance
and individual caprice have less influence in the formation of language than in any other product of the human mind. For language is not merely a property, but the expression of the very inward life of all. As being the common expression of thought, its development must depend on internal laws, and must precede any other. The intelligible expression of religious consciousness ever presupposes language ; and language and religion must exist previously to all political institutions, as well as to all art and all science.' (Egypt's place in universal History, Introduction, Vol. i. p. 34.)
There are two theories in language ; the first, that it was the effect of human invention. The other, that it was the gift of God. If its origin were entirely human, it is surprising that we should have no record when it was invented. And by whom ? —that no one should now ever invent a new language—that uncivilized nations should be in possession of most elaborate and methodical languages—that in children the power of expression should not be dependent on the gradual enlargement of their ideas—that the lower animals should never with all their sagacity aim at any thing approaching to language, as consisting of subjects, predicates, and copulatives, &c. &c. Whereas that it came from the Almighty in the first instance, though left to man's power for its full and later development, appears from its being coeval with Adam's existence, as the history of the temptation and the revelations which Adam received both in and out of Paradise fully prove, not to mention his own use of it in the case before us previous to the creation of Eve ; and it appears also from the advanced state of knowledge of the world before the Flood as indicated in Genesis, implying the use of extensive oral
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	69
communication, and from the fact that it was first employed to communicate the thoughts of God.
These names which Adam gave to animals (whether this term include the cattle merely, or the beasts of the field' also,) might have been derived perhaps from his calls to them, or from their size, shape, colour, or sound. Thus God might have instructed Adam to make use of the faculties and organs with which he had endowed him, ever and anon prompting him, just as he afterwards apparently supernaturally endowed man at Babel with different languages, and the Apostles at Pentecost, each with all languages. Therefore we read in the book of Wisdom, Men received the use of the five operations of the Lord, and in the sixth place he imparted to them understanding, and in the seventh speech, an interpreter of the cogitations thereof.' That the power of speaking was primarily the gift of God to man, and not the result of his own ingenuity (however much language itself, or that which was spoken, might have been so), appears from the fact that the highest attainments of modern science have only just arrived at the invention of a machine by which letters, words, and even sentences have been articulated. These are the inventions of Kratzenstein 1 of St Petersburg, Kempelen of Vienna, and Willis of Cambridge.
It is said that in eastern languages the names of substances are more expressive of their properties than in what are generally called more modern ones. Still, after all that has been said on both sides of this interesting subject, it must be confessed that it is difficult for us now to determine, and therefore wrong to dogmatize upon, the exact amount of instruction given at this time by Jehovah in this respect to Adam.
The process described in this verse is the reflection of what takes place now in the phenomena of the surrounding universe ; God presents them to us one by one, that we may give them names, and to see what we should call them ; and whether we call them rightly or wrongly, the things themselves are unaffected by it. And we have little power over them, though we have perfect power over our own language. And yet, strange to say, there has been no more fruitful source of discord in both the religious and scientific world than logomachy,
1 Connexion of the Sciences, p. 179, sec. 17.
70	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII.
even if we pass over the endless disputes of the realists and nominalists, as arising out of the connexion between names and things.
Here too is recorded the first elementary instruction in language, the way in which we all begin with our children—giving names to substances or individuals. These simple elements of language were probably as much as was suited to man's purposes at that era. But gradually language grew more copious and more philosophical. Bishop Warburton tells us that in the first ages of the world intercourse was carried on partly by words, and partly by signs ; whence came the phrase, the voice of a sign' (Exodus iv. 8). Instances of speech by signs occur in 1 Kings xxii. 11 ; Jeremiah xiii. 19 ; xxvii. 51 ; Ezekiel iv. 5 ; xii. 26-37. From these two kinds of speech sprung the phonetic and ideagraphic systems of writing.
Archbishop King thought that this verse related the way by which God taught man language—that this language went no further than the names of animals over whom he was to exercise dominion. The foundation of human language having thus been laid, doubtless its subsequent arrangements and enlargement were left to human invention and judgment.
Some are of opinion that this naming of the animal kingdom implied either the extensive philosophical knowledge which Adam possessed at that time, or else the fact that the whole system of nomenclature was an immediate revelation. Thus Bishop Bull (in his Essay On the State of Man before the Fall, pp. 1179, 1180) says, It is evident that Adam, in his state of integrity, had a knowledge of certain things unaccountable on any other hypothesis but this, that his mind was irradiated with a divine illumination. I might here insist upon that admirable philosophy-lecture which Adam, appointed by God himself, read upon all the other animals. For although his theme here was a part of natural philosophy, yet his performance herein, if we look to its circumstances, cannot but be judged by every considering man to be the effect of more than human sagacity. That in the infinite variety of creatures never before seen by Adam he should be able on a sudden, without study and premeditation, to give names to each of them, so adapted and fitted to their natures as that God himself should approve the nomenclature, how astonishing a thing is it ! What single man among all the philosophers since the fall,
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	71
what Plato, what Aristotle, &c. among the ancients, what Descartes or Gassendus, &c. among the moderns,—nay, what 'Royal Society '—durst have undertaken this ? Hence Plato himself (in Cratylo) ackno wledgeth the man that first imposed names on things to have been the wisest of mortals ; nay, he affirms him to have had something more than human in him. His words are these : " I suppose, 0 Socrates, the truest account of the problem to be this, that a certain power more than human imposed the first names on things." '
But I cannot think that this view is at all absolutely necessary to be taken ; because, even if we allow all the animals living to have come before Adam for this purpose, domestic as well as wild, he might not have named the animals from a thorough knowledge of their generic and specific attributes, with all the scientific insight of a Cuvier ; while yet, on the other hand, he did not certainly name them at random, and as an effect of pure invention : for if he had done so, language would soon have utterly failed him ; unless we suppose that in doing so he was the mere automaton in the hands of the Divine Being, which idea those words, and brought them to Adam to see what he would name them' seem to exclude. It appears, however, very doubtful whether those animals which were brought to Adam to be named were any more than those domestic animals called sometimes cattle,' and beasts of the field,' which were to be sharers of his abode in Paradise, as opposed to the others who were, some think, antithetically called, in the first chapter, 'beasts of the earth.' There is an ellipse in the Hebrew in v. 19. If therefore Adam was inspired at all, which inference, I think, we must draw from the foregoing arguments on the origin of language, if we do not draw it also from the unlikelihood of Adam's being sufficiently acquainted at this time with the habits and properties of the animals to enable him to name them all in succession, without extraneous aid, unless indeed we suppose language to have been intuitive in Adam, which in the first place amounts to inspiration ; for all intuition in man (if any such thing there be) is the immediate gift of God ; and, secondly, this notion is not, I believe, entertained even by any of the advocates of the human invention of language ; some of them referring to its gradual development, as necessity the (mother of invention) called it forth ; others, making it out to be the sudden result of
72	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. II.
a meeting of very scientific men for the purpose of inventing a comparatively perfect medium of communication between man and his fellow, of course occurring in some highly advanced stage of human intellect and knowledge ; to such absurdities do the advocates ef the other aside of the question have recourse. All of these refuges, however, are diametrically opposed to that which would refer it to human intuition.
Those who suppose that Adam, without aid, gave names to all the animals, but understanding by this the whole animate creation, and that such names were descriptive of their natural qualities and relations, of course must conclude that Adam was possessed of vast knowledge of the animal kingdom at least, because no one could name them all now without such knowledge. But this question can never be perfectly settled on this supposition, or set at rest by any thing else but circumstantial evidence, until the primaeval language of Paradise be satisfactorily determined. Many have asserted this to be Hebrew. Sir William Jones thought it was the ancient Parsee. Some have thought it Arabic ; others, Sanskrit. While Mr Forster seems to consider the words on the Sinaitic monuments as belonging to the primaeval language. Also the Syriac, the Chinese, and even the Celtic and the Dutch, have been in turn fixed upon as the original language.
Those who argue for the necessity of Adam's system of names being a scientific one, might urge with great truth that all names are, from their very nature, generic ; that we cannot name anything which we do not speak of at random in any other way than by attributing certain qualities which belong to it either accidentally or essentially, and embodying them in a name; that all right nomenclature is expressive of the attributes, qualities, and essential properties, if not of the accidents of the things named ; although modern science has foolishly given way to a different system in some respects, a system as suicidal as it is absurd.
But it is much to be doubted whether these languages, from which the primaeval alphabets are to be chosen (if from any now extant), do contain any system of nomenclature derived from and based upon philosophical observation ; if they had done so, the recent labours of comparative anatomists might have been in a measure spared.
On the whole, then, I consider much of the following eloquent
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	73
passage of Dr South rather fanciful than true : Now it was,' says he, Adam's happiness in the state of innocence to have these clear and unsullied. He came into the world a philosopher, which sufficiently appeared by his writing the nature of things upon their names ; he could view essences in themselves, and read forms without the comment of their respective properties ; he could see consequents yet dormant in their principles, and effects yet unborn, and in the womb of their causes : his understanding could almost pierce into future contingents, his conjectures improving even to prophecy on the certainties of prediction ; till his fall it was ignorant of nothing but sin ; or at least it rested in the notion without the smart of the experiment. Could any difficulty have been proposed, the resolution would have been as early as the proposal ; it could not have had time to settle into doubt. Like a better Archimedes the issues of all his enquiries was an evprma, an cynic« the offspring of his brain without the sweat of his brow. Study was not then a duty, night watchings were needless; the light of reason wanted not the assistance of a candle. This is the doom of fallen man, to labour in the fire, to seek truth in profundo, to exhaust his time and impair his health, and perhaps to spin out his days, and himself, into one pitiful controverted conclusion. There was then no poring, no struggling with memory, no straining for invention : his faculties were quick and expedite, they answered without knocking, they were ready upon the first summons, there was freedom and firmness in all their operations. I confess it is difficult for us who date our ignorance from our first being, and were still brought up with our infirmities about us with which we were born, to raise our thoughts and imagination to those intellectual perfections that attended our nature in the time of innocence ; as it is for a peasant, bred up in the obscurities of a cottage, to fancy in his mind the unseen splendours of a court. But by rating positives by their privatives, and other arts of reason by which discourse supplies the want of the reports of sense, we may collect the excellency of the understanding then by the glorious remainders of it now, and guess at the stateliness of the building by the magnificence of its ruins. All those arts, rarities, inventions, which vulgar minds gaze at, the ingenious pursue, and all admire, are but the reliques of an intellect defaced with sin and time. We admire it now only as antiquaries do a piece of old coin, for the stamp it once bore, and
74	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII.II.
not for those vanishing lineaments and disappearing draughts that remain upon it at present. And certainly that must needs have been very glorious, the decays of which are so admirable. He that is comely, when old and decrepit, surely was very beautiful when young. An Aristotle was but the rubbish of an Adam, and Athens but the rudiments of Paradise'.'
It is observable that the fish are not mentioned here, but only the fowl of the air, and the cattle and beasts of the field, because they could not leave their native element in order to come to Adam. Milton represents the Almighty as saying to Adam—
.... 'Understand the same
Of fish, within their watery residence,
Not hither summoned since they cannot change
Their element to draw the thinner air.'
Perhaps there were no fish in Paradise, but only in the waters
outside it. The word niv, ,ager,' comes from 7r1V.,, which is
'-
cognate with	extendere.'
Ver. 21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept : and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.
We now come to the explanation of what was stated prolep-tically in the 29th verse of the first chapter. The description given here accords with 1 Tim. ii. 3, Adam was first formed, and then Eve.' By selecting this mode of creating Eve in the presence of Adam, God taught them both their relative duties. These are enlarged upon in Matt. xix. 5, 6 ; Ephesians V. 22, 33 ; 1 Tim. ii. 12, 13 : 1 Cor. xi. 8, 9. This deep sleep' is thought by Bp. Bull to have been not only an expedient for the performance of the wonderful operation in him, without sense of pain, but also an EKCITaCrig, to prepare him for the receiving of that divine oracle, which presently upon his awaking he uttered. It may be compared to that deep sleep which Abraham was subjected to just before the revelations were made to him (Gen. xv. 12), and St Peter (in Acts x. 10), and St Paul (Acts xxii. 17), Tertullian, Augustine, Bernard, and also Philo the Jew, look upon it in this light. That Adam, or the protoplast, as he is called, was inspired to prophesy, some think, appears from Luke i. 70.
1 South's Sermons, Vol. I. p. 38. Sermon on Gen. i. 27.
CII. ii.]	NOTES ON GENESIS..	75
But it is certain, from our Saviour's own attributing of Adam's words used on this occasion to God (Matt. xix. 5).
A deep sleep is more characteristic of the quiet manner in which scriptural revelations were imparted than of the mode of receiving heathen communications : the former tallying more with 1 Kings xix. 12, and 1 Pet. i. 10-13. The spirit of the prophetic seer was not previously phrenzied like that of the Sybil, nor enraged like that of the demoniac, (Luke iv. 33 ; viii. 26,) but calm and tranquil like the bosom of the sleeping lake, when, with a mellow softness it reflects back the sun's rays, as from the undisturbed surface of a mirror. There was no pectus anhelum et rabie fera corda tumentia ;' we do not read that gelidus per dura cucurrit ossa tremor.' But the communications of God with all the prophets from the beginning of the world, have been characterized by their sober
spirit.	Yeri prophetx,' says Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical
History, qui spiritu Dei repleti erant quieto ac tranquillo animo predicabant futura. Pseudo Prophetm vero, qualis erat Montanus, cum furore et insania loquebantur, certe Catholici hoc precipue objiciebant Montanistis, &c. Cum tamen nec in novo nec in vetere testamento2 prophetas in exstasi unquam prophetasse legamus.'
When Adam therefore had just awaked out of sleep, he had all his faculties fresh about him, and was ready for the subsequent prophecy. This deep sleep which Adam underwent on the sixth day seems opposed to Dr Lightfoot's idea that he fell on the sixth day (as laid down in his Sermon on Exodus xx. 11); although it is not absolutely inconsistent with it. He founds it on that text, But man (or Adam) abideth not in honour, but is like the beasts that perish' (Ps. xlv. 12). The 92nd Psalm is said by the Chaldaic translator to have been sung by Adam after his fall on the Sabbath day.
Ver. 22. And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
1 Virgil, Jneid, Lib.
2 Of course the word exstasi' is used in a totally different sense by Eusebius, from the word Exa-racrl' of Bishop Bull, the one implying perturbation, the other calmness. The disturbed state of Isaiah's mind (ch. vi.) was not caused by prophetic communications, but by the actual appearance of Deity.
76	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. II.
Milton very beautifully describes this first interview of Adam
and Eve in the Paradise Lost, Book viii. line 352, &c., Addison also wrote a very beautiful critique upon these lines of Milton in
the Spectator. It has been affirmed that the word ritn) in this
place does not signify a rib,' but a side,' or half,' e. g. Exodus xxvi. 26, 27, 35.
Ver. 23. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh : she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
The word now' is emphatic (1:rn). It might be more
emphatically rendered on this occasion,' as if Adam spoke prophetically, knowing that his future posterity would not be thus
formed.	She ' ought to be rendered it,' i. e. the bone.'
rrl..r7 is not feminine.
How could Adam know the exact manner in which Eve was
formed out of his side when he was in a deep sleep, except by inspiration ?
' woman,' from r'kt, like the old Latin word vira,' •
from vir.' The alliance between Adam and Eve, though a type of the marriage relation, yet was undoubtedly nearer than any later union, for the wife is never the husband's rib, nor out of his side ; neither is the present relation of wife a natural one as here it was, but simply ordained. If it were essentially natural (like the relation of brother and sister, parent and child) no human law could ever disannul it in particular cases, and polygamy, adultery, fornication, and concubinage, would then be unnatural. Again, in Adam and Eve marriage was a moral duty, in obedience to the command, Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth ;' with their descendants it may be doubted how far it is so universally, i. e. how far every human being is obliged to marry, and the celibate in itself a crime. These are the points of dissimilarity between the two cases ; there are
points of striking resemblance.	The wisdom and goodness of
God,' says Fenelon, has provided for the peace and comfort of his creatures by this institution, as a bar against the anarchy and confusion which would otherwise prevail even in the most refined society.'
Ver. 24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife : and they shall be one flesh.
ad.
4-C-#1 1-1-0	33'104'j-
-1,-.0.4e-eie--s_ •
CH. II.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	77
There exist at least three distinct opinions with regard to marriage ; the first, that which is held by the Roman Catholics, that it is a sacrament. The principal argument from Scripture adduced in favour of this is taken from the first chapter of Ephe-sians and 32nd verse. The words this is a great mystery,' the vulgate renders, this is a great sacrament,' in spite of what the Apostle afterwards declares, I speak concerning Christ and his church.' However, their own requisites for a sacrament,
matter, form, and a minister,' it is difficult to find here ; and the institution of it by Christ in His gospel as a sacrament is also absent. The second opinion is that of some professed believers in Scripture who look upon it altogether as a civil institution. In favour of this hypothesis they tell us that God has connected no religious ceremonial with it, not even so much as he connected with the feasts under the law, therefore it is not a religious institution ; and it is not a moral institution, since it is confessedly not of universal moral obligation ; therefore it must be a civil institution. But in answer to this it may be asserted that it is a religious contract, for Christ tells us, What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,' (Matt. xix. 3-6). And when we refer to the verse now under consideration in connexion with the previous one, we see that God himself instituted it by a miracle. These two accounts of its institution—the one from Genesis, the other from St Matthew's gospel—both determine it to be a divine ordinance, which is the highest species of religious ordinance. And this, in the third place, is the opinion of the Church of England, and of most Protestant dissenters, who acknowledge Scripture. The fact that temporal convenience is its principal end, no more proves it to be primarily and essentially a civil arrangement, than that this is the case with the command to abstain from murder or theft. The absence of a divinely appointed ceremonial for marriage no more does away with its divine appointment, than the absence of a fixed Sabbath ritual does away with the divine appointment of the Sabbath. The universal consent, not of the Jews merely, but of all nations, might be pleaded for its being a religious ordinance, for they have all treated it as such ; while the priority of its existence to all society, negatives its being a mere civil ordinance.
That marriage was looked upon by the Church as a religious ordinance from the very beginning, will appear from the following testimonies :—
78	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. II.
Ignatius, in his Epistle to Polycarp, says, that the marriage may be in the Lord, and not in the flesh: the man and woman should consult the judgment of the bishop ;' and this was said at a time when the churches of Christendom were hardly formed at all.
In the next century, Tertullian says (Lib. ii. ad Uxorem, c. 9), How can I describe the happiness of that marriage which the Church approves, the oblation confirms, the angels proclaim when sealed, and the Father ratifies ?' Here was a religious ceremony closing with the administration of the eucharist.
In the 4th century St Basil (in his 7th homily in Hexce-meron) says, Let this bond of nature, this yoke which is a yoke through or by means of the blessing, unite together those who before were separated ?'
Ambrose (in his 19th Epistle) says, As marriage must be sanctified by the priest's sanction and blessing, how can that be a marriage when there is no agreement of faith?'
Pope Siricius 1, speaking of marriage, says, That blessing which the priest imparts may be considered as a kind of sacrilege, if it be attended with any transgression.' (Labbe's General Councils, Tom. ii. p. 1019, Paris edition.)
Chrysostom (in his 18th Sermon), speaking of marriage, asks, to what purpose is it that you call in a priest to crave a blessing, and the next day you commit wicked actions ?'
Leo the Great, Innocent the First, Cyril of Alexandria, and others, use similar language. Afterwards proofs thicken as we proceed.
The universality of the allowance of marriage to all mankind is perhaps inferrible here, from the words, Therefore shall a man,' or men' inkt_. How then can the Romanists exclude by
law any set of men, as priests for instance, from its observance, in the face of these passages and others (e. g. Heb. xiii. 4 ; 1 Cor. xi. 5 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2) to the same effect ?
And they two shall be one flesh' (Kennicott), following the Samaritan text, and all ancient versions. This agrees with 1 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. v. 31; Mark x. 8. Vide Barrett, Synopsis in loco.
1 These testimonies are quoted from the British Magazine, No. XXXIX. March, 1835.
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	79
CHAPTER III.
THE allegorical mode of interpretation, although there is much to be said in its favour, as applied to some parts of Scrip-
ture, yet as applied to the following chapter, is, on the whole, evidently inadmissible. This hermeneutical principle certainly had a fitness for the natural state of the human mind, which renders it probable that the Deity should have often so constructed his communications as that they should be allegorically interpreted.
Doubtless allegory was a great vehicle of communication from the earliest periods of human existence. The hieroglyphic system of expressing thought was nothing but a tissue,' as Warburton calls it, of metaphor and allegory.' The earliest mythological system also of the most ancient nations was but the employment of deep woven allegory. This love of allegory seems to have prevailed more in the earlier times of the world (and consequently at that time when God bequeathed his primary revelations) than at any later period. And we see the love of the figurative more prevalent among simple and primitive races than amongst civilized ones. The savage orator interweaves his discourses with metaphor, or perhaps clothes the whole in allegory, whilst the civilized speaker uses plainer language as a vehicle for his thoughts. This consideration would lead us to expect to find a book written in the most primitive of times, and addressed to the most primitive of mankind, replete with allegory. But the allegorical principle of interpretation, however true and sound in itself, is yet capable of great abuse. That absurd belief of the middle ages which assigned to almost every passage of Scripture, besides its historical meaning, a three-fold mystical one, viz. tropical, analogical, and allegorical, is an instance of this. No one who casts a glance at the absurdities of many of the interpretations of those times, can for a moment doubt the liability of that principle of interpretation to strange abuse. Thus it behoves the interpreter of Scripture always to use the strictest caution when employing it, lest he be led by his imagination further than a sound judgment will approve. This mode of interpretation seems to have prevailed much among the Germans, many of whom merely advocate it, out of the Kantian philosophy.
Kant appears,' says Professor Staeudlin, to have taught simple moral Deism. Without actually speaking contemptuously
80	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. III.
of positive religion, he taught that it was to be judged of critically and philosophically, and that the positive and historical doctrines of Christianity could be viewed as the sensible and figurative covering of simple and universal religious and moral axioms'? On this principle the chapter now under consideration has been by the Germans stripped of all its beautiful simplicity, and turned into an abstruse moral allegory, not by any means clearly intelligible. Coleridge2 and others appear to have thought that the literal sense of this chapter was no more intended than the literal sense of an oriental fable, or a mystical poem of Hafiz. And yet, strange to say, Coleridge has this very remark just before3, The letter without the spirit killeth ; but it does not follow that the spirit is to kill the letter, to kill that which it is its appropriate office to enliven.' And yet this principle of interpretation is applicable where the literal sense of any text is not consistent with its context, or with other parts of Scripture, as for instance in the 22nd chapter of the 1st book of Kings—the literal interpretation of the words of which, would represent the Deity as doing that which is totally abhorrent to His nature and attributes to do ; and perhaps the dialogue of Satan with the Almighty, contained in the 1st chapter of Job, and the descriptions contained in the 12th chapter of the book of Revelation of heaven under the images of precious stones, &c. ; the too literal interpretation of which descriptions by the early fathers afforded, it is to be feared, too much foundation for the keen sarcasm of the infidel Gibbon in the 15th chapter of his History. It seems not unlikely that the doctrine of Mahomet, which assigned to all animals a judgment-day, in which they should all be rewarded according to their deeds in this life, arose out of an absurdly literal interpretation of Ezekiel xxxiv. 17, where the secondary or allegorical meaning was alone intended. When however this sort of interpretation is made to exclude or oppose the literal interpretation (though the latter be clear and consistent with the context, and with other parts of Scripture), then this is a flagrant abuse of the principle. If this abuse once be permitted, no part of the Scriptures can
1 History of Theological Knowledge and Literature, p. 14. Cabinet Library, No. IX.—Vide also Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 1. Prelim. Diss. 1. page 194, &c.
2 Aids to Reflection, p. 249, Aphorism 9, ch. viii.
3 Ibid. Aph. 6, ' On Spiritual Religion.' Comment.
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	81
be exempt from its influence, no doctrine of the Bible is safe ; and as applied to the history of the fall, the grand doctrine of
the atonement is invalidated.	Allegory thus misapplied,' says
Bishop Van Mildert, is more than useless or frivolous : it strikes a deadly blow at the very vitals of the Christian faith'?
The practice of spiritualising historical facts came partly from heathens and partly from Jews. When pagan philosophers were driven by the Christians into allegorical expositions of their mythology, in order to clothe their legends with mystic wisdom, they then retorted by attacking the credibility of the historical narratives of Scripture. These attacks Christian apologists foolishly met by claiming for them that allegorical interpretation which the heathens asserted for their myths, which, though an unanswerable defence with those to whom it was addressed, yet often most unwisely and unnecessarily involved the dereliction of the literal interpretation. This principle, as applied to Scripture, was taken also from the Targums, from the interpretations of Philo, and from the Cabbala, where such hermeneutics abound.
The advocates of the allegorical interpretation of these primaeval narratives assign several reasons for the necessity of its application. They insist on the difficulty of ascertaining now the topography of the countries referred to in them ; but surely this is a difficulty which equally meets the student of established classical history. They object to the effects which some maintain are attributed to the two trees of life and knowledge ; but even supposing these results do stand to the trees in the relation of necessary effect to a cause, which is far from evident, there is nothing contradictory to reason and analogy in the supposition, but only contrary to the ordinary provisions of nature ; for some vegetable productions are even now found to produce stupor, delirium, and even idiotcy. They urge the impossibility of interpreting literally Gen. ii. 19, 20, which is, they say, zoologically impossible,' and which is a part of the same narrative. To this it may be replied, that nothing is impossible with God,' if the Almighty wished to effect it ; but an equally literal interpretation of these verses has been offered, p. 71, which is not zoologically impossible. They bring forward the physical absurdity of the account of the formation of Eve when literally interpreted,
Bampton Lectures, Sermon VII. p. 203.
6
82	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. III.
since it is physically incorrect to state that Eve could have been created out of a single rib without the aid of adventitious matter; but surely the whole account is not more wonderful than the creation of Adam out of the dust of the earth, or the multiplication of the loaves and fishes by our Saviour ; not to mention the many valuable truths that were thus typified, thus accounting for the form which this miracle assumed. They allege the fact that Satan is represented as a loathsome and disgusting animal, who yet seduces Eve into disobedience ; but it is not at all certain, but rather improbable, that the serpent had the same form and appearance then as afterwards ; its eye even now is suited to a more commanding configuration. They assert, that the punishment of the serpent, who was merely Satan's instrument, is inconsistent with eternal justice ; but this is a gratuitous supposition, until it can be shewn exactly what view eternal justice must necessarily take of the whole transaction. They object, lastly, to the flaming swords of the cherubim, as being literally interpreted ; but this might be a metaphorical expression. In short, all these, however plausible and even insuperable they may seem at first sight, on mature consideration will be found to admit of triumphant answers. If the reader wish to pursue the subject further, he must be referred to Holden's Dissertation on the Fall of Man, and Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, &c.
But there is another principle of interpretation, quite distinct from the allegorical, and which has been called by some the philosophical, by Pareau the ultra-philosophic principle. The so-called philosophical principle is simply this, that we are to believe nothing which it is not within the capacity of our reasoning powers to understand. The interpreter on this principle, finding in the literal account of the fall a superhuman history, which tells him of a speaking serpent, and of man's fall from purity through eating the fruit of a forbidden tree ; and not seeing the reconcile-ableness of this with natural phenomena at present, has recourse at once to a tropical mode of interpretation ; a Procrustes' bed, to which all the divine proportions of the narrative must be reduced, before he can entertain it at all. The Gnostics went further than even this, and rejected the facts altogether. But that this principle is erroneous, need hardly be urged. For the man who acted on it in science would disbelieve, say—all the conclusions
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	83
of Newton and of Leibnitz in astronomy, of De Candolle in vegetable physiology, or of Davy in chemistry : and, in fact, every important fact in nature deduced by the labours of men of science, simply because his own mind was not sufficiently cultivated to understand the processes by which they arrived at their conclusions. The blind man would disbelieve in the existence of colours because he could not form any correct notion of their nature ; and men would disbelieve in heaven, hell, and eternity. Verily this principle may be called the philosophical, in a spirit of irony and caricature, rather than with any semblance of truth. There is not the slightest evidence that this scriptural account was either allegorically or philosophically interpreted by those to whom it was addressed. And if Moses gave his narration as simple history, when it was not so, he must have been an impostor. In addition to this, the New Testament writers treat it as a fact, and not a myth, e. g. 1 Cor. xii. 3, &c.
Moreover, many things within the narrative are spoken of as facts, whereas no writer of true history mixes up fact with allegory in one continued narrative,' says Bishop Horsley (Bib. Crit. p. 9, Vol. I.) without any intimation of a transition from
one to the other	If the formation of the woman out of the
man be an allegory, the woman must be an allegorical woman. The man therefore must be an allegorical man ; for of such a man only the allegorical woman will be a meet companion. If the man be allegorical, his Paradise will be an allegorical garden —the trees that grew in it allegorical trees —the rivers that watered it allegorical rivers. Thus we may ascend to the very beginning of creation, and conclude at last that the heavens are allegorical heavens, and the earth an allegorical earth. Thus the whole scheme of creation will be an allegory, of which the real subject is not disclosed, and in this absurdity the scheme of allegorizing ends.' Ingenious as this reasoning is, the train of sequences is not necessarily a connected one, as we should see if we compared many existing allegories, e. g. Spenser's poems, or Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, the best specimens perhaps of allegory extant in our language, in which real things are continually mixed up with allegorical. The same might be said of W. Adams' short allegories, and many others.
Among the early fathers, Clement seems to have received the account of the fall partly as a fact, and partly as an allegory.
84	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. III.
Origen appears to have considered it purely allegorical. Ire-nmus explained it spiritually, but fully admitted the historical fact. This objection to the serpent speaking to man, was brought by Julian the apostate to the history of the fall. And Cyril' of Alexandria retorts by an allusion to the beech trees of Dodona, the horses of Achilles, of Hector, and Antilochus, the river Nessus represented by Porphyry as saluting Pythagoras, Thespe-sion representing the trees of India as calling Apollo by his name, and other instances from pagan mythology. However unanswerable this might have been as a retort to the heathen emperor, to us it would furnish no argument.
The chapter begins with these words, Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.'
Some explain this of a mere serpent only. The Cabbalists of Satan only, under an allegorical representation. Bp Warburton, who admits the double meaning of the word, thinks that the instrument (the serpent) is alone mentioned here, and not the agent (Satan) ; because the revelation of Satan would have too intimate a connexion with the doctrine of a future state, which was not intended to be made known at this time2.
That there was a natural serpent employed on this occasion is evident from Gen. iii. 1, 14, 15. Verse 1 implying that this serpent was a beast of the field ;' verses 14 and 15 being such a description as could only apply to a natural serpent. That it was possessed on this occasion with more than natural powers, is inferred from the whole history ; and among other things from the sentence pronounced upon him, which implied that he was a guilty and responsible being.
The agent or Satan is represented by the serpent in Rev. xii. 9, the old serpent ;' 1 Cor. xii. 3, the serpent beguiled Eve ;' Rev. xii. 14, from the face of the serpent ;' Rev. xx. 2, that old serpent, who is the devil, and Satan.' The serpent was adored in Egypt as divine. In Cashmere snakes were worshipped. In Egypt he represented their God Cneph, or the AnAtourych. In the hieroglyphic sculptures a serpent formed into a circle was the emblem of eternity. At Babylon serpent worship was common (Diodorus Siculus, Lib. ii. c. 4). In the Eleusinian mys-
1 Cyril. adv. Julian. Lib. in.	2 Div. Leg. Book v. sec. 5.
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	85
teries a serpent was carried about on a pole, as an emblem of the devil (Grotius, de Veritate, &c., notes by Le Clerc). In many places the oracles were delivered by means of a serpent. Divi-nations in most languages are rendered by a word taken from a serpent, according to Archbishop King. It is a curious fact that the word Wil.1 not only signifies generally a reptile,' besides what we call a serpent,' but also brass.' Perhaps this last signification arose from the brazen serpent.
Irenwus 1 tells us that Satan dared not by himself nakedly and openly to blaspheme his Lord, as in the beginning he seduced man by the serpent, hiding himself, as it were, from God. Ori-gen2 tells us that the story of Ophis was taken from the devil's tempting Eve, as a serpent. Humboldt3 mentions, in the Mexican hieroglyphics, a painting of the mother of mankind, or serpent-woman. She is always represented with a great serpent. Perhaps Ovid's myth of Apollo and the serpent Pytho was taken from the Scriptural prophecy, ver. 15. Probably the Ahariman or evil demon of the Persians was taken from the vv.", the subtle one' of Moses. And perhaps, too, the Arimanes of the Greeks was only the WM b11 I1 of Moses. There has been so much collected and written about the serpent, that it would be unnecessary to go over the half of it in this place. The allusions elsewhere made to this account of the fall in Scripture are to be found in John viii. 41; Wisdom ii. 23 ; Job xx. 4, &c. ; xxxi. 33 ; xii. 16 ; xxvi. 13 ; xv. 14; xiv. 3, 4 ; Eccles. vii. 25, 29 ; Ps. li. 5 ; Wisdom i. 13, 14 ; Ecclus. xiv. 24 ; and throughout the Epistle to the Romans.
And he said unto the woman, Yea, bath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden ? This could hardly have been the commencement of the conversation between the two. It is too abrupt, and seems to imply a previous communication.
t•t, Etiam quod,' or Vero sic.'
Some suppose that Eve as yet would not know the nature of the serpent, and every thing around her would be new to her ; and therefore she would not be more surprised at the serpent addressing her than at the many wonders which were continually
1 Lib. v. c. 26, quoted in Immortality of the Soul, a Peculiar Grace of the Gospel. Edit. London, 1708. p. 4.
2 Contra Celsum, Lib. vs.	3 Researches, Vol. is. pp. 82, &c.
86	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CIL HI.
presenting themselves to her view. There are those who translate it, Why hath God said ?' But I can nowhere find this
meaning of 9N. The word is synonymous with ,_;13- and ...el.
Other interpreters, however, understand that Eve saw the natural serpent eat of the forbidden fruit, and that the devil then took occasion to address her on the subject ; and that Eve thought that it was the serpent which spoke to her, Satan being invisible. Those persons thus translate the first verse, The serpent became (as it seemed to Eve) more subtil than any other animal.' Ver. 2. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. Here is an instance of 117 being rendered necessarily trees,' and not tree.' This
instance will, of course, strengthen Dr Kennicott's view of the tree of life.' It is supposed that Eve was not astonished at the address of the serpent, because she was not with Adam when the beasts were brought before him one by one.
Ver. 3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
It is asserted that ' in the midst of the garden' implied the excellency, no less than the central position of the tree.
Ver. 4, 5. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die : for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Satan perhaps little thought that when he was giving God the lie, as he intended, and uttering a deceitful falsehood, that he was actually predicting the truth ; and the Almighty in fulfilling Satan's prophecy, and making men as gods, in admitting them to intimate communion with himself, through the Redeemer from sin, has surely frustrated the malign intention of the archfiend.
Some of the Rabbins think that the art of sorcery was then revealed to Adam. The question as to whether mankind act, in the elections which they make, and on which their happiness depends, with a freedom from compulsion only, but not from necessity, has long been such a vexata qucestio with metaphysicians that to discuss it here to any purpose would produce too long a digression. The reader may be referred to the works of
CII. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	87
Clarke and King, On the Origin of Evil, to Edwards, On the Will, to Butler's Analogy (ch. vi. pt. I.), and a thousand other metaphysical works.
Ver. 6. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her ; and he did eat.
The reader should here be referred to some very interesting sermons on the temptation, by Bp Andrews, in which he carries on a comparison between the temptations of the first and second Adam all through. Kennicott thinks that it is here implied (in the words,'when the woman saw that the tree was good for food') that the serpent took of the fruit of the tree before her, and did eat ; but this does not seem a necessary inference. He thinks that Adam ate from the representation of Eve, without seeing the serpent ; and that this is implied in those words of the Apostle (1 Tim. ii. 14), Eve being deceived was in the transgression; but Adam was not deceived.' Some, however, consider this to mean, that the specious arguments overcame Eve's understanding, but that Adam, more cautious and wise, was not taken in by them, but fell solely through affection for his wife ; to which I would add, as a possible additional motive, a slight misinterpretation of the command to cleave unto his wife,' even when wrong (Gen. H. 24). Others, however, infer from Romans xv. and 1 Cor. xv., where Adam is represented as the responsible person, that Adam and Eve consulted together before Adam ate the fruit. With respect to the practical inferences from the sixth verse, we may compare Prov. xxiii. 31; Job xxxi. 1; Psalm cxix. 31; Deut. xxix. 29.
Ver. 7. And the eyes of them both were opened. Here was Satan's promise (ver. 5) fulfilled, in a different way from what they expected.
And they knew that they were naked. 'I ought here,' says Kennicott, to be rendered by but.' Noldius refers to a mass of instances where the word is used in this sense (p. 300, edit. Hafnite, 1679), amongst which occur the following : Cant. iii. 8 ; Ruth i. 11; Eccl. i. 4 ; 2 Sam. xi. 1; 2 Kings xix. 3 ; Zeph. i. 13 ; Prov. iii. 33, in all of which he renders 1 by sed.'
Archbishop King says : He had offended God, and had no defence against his fellow-creatures. The sun scorched him, the
88	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CM III.
rain wet him, the cold pierced him. He found an inconveniency in exposing his body, and was ashamed of the effect of it. He found himself moved with lust, and other irregular passions, and his reason unable to curb them. Whereas the power of God, whilst he was under the divine government, had kept all his faculties in perfect order. He saw now, therefore, great hurt in nakedness, which no way incommoded him whilst covered in innocency.' And they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons ; this word rrv, is translated breeches in Queen Eliza-
beth's Bible. Hence the editions of that date are always known by book-fanciers by the rendering of this passage.
Ver. 8. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.
Some have supposed that (1:14t4	171p rIt!;) it was
some person called the voice of the Lord God ' whom they heard walking in the garden. These' interpreters say that God the Son is often called by some epithet equivalent to this, if not identical with it. Hence it must have been God the Son who appeared to them under this title. St John calls him the Word' (ch. i. 5) ; Isaiah calls him (xxx. 27) the name of the Lord,' the whole of which passage is inapplicable to a mere name, and applicable only to a person. They consider it the same being whom the prophet Malachi calls the messenger' or angel of the covenant.'
But Gen. iii. 10 seems to imply that the voice of the Lord
God and the Lord God were different.	I heard thy voice in
the garden,' &c.
This appearance of the Lv would be somewhat different to
the L'ip M of Jewish writers, or 'filia vocis,' which succeeded in
the room of prophecy, and which is supposed to be exemplified in John xii. 28, 29 ; Matt. iii. 17 ; xvii. 5, 6 ; 2 Pet. i. 17, 18, and which was a kind of inferior inspiration which moved their exterior senses, and by the mediation thereof informed their minds 2. Commentators have not been wanting who have affirmed that the voice of God merely represented thunder, and God's words, as here given, the dictates of conscience in Adam and Eve.
1 Faber, On the Three Dispensations, pp. 194, &e. Vol. I.
2 Vido Smith's Select Discourses,—Discourse on Prophecy, ch. I. pp. 277, &c.
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	89
frint, the same word is used in Gen. xviii. 33, with reference to another appearance of Deity. In Exodus xix. 19, it appears in conjunction with t71p. A similar expression is used in reference to sound in Acts ii. 2.
1:41"1 111117, in the cool' or in the wind of the day.'
And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence
of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. Here again
the word 117 is necessarily translated trees,' not tree.' Vide
Heb. iv. 13 ; Job xxxiv. 22 ; Amos ix. 3 ; Jer. xxiii. 24.
Ver. 9. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou ?
Some of those who think that this was an appearance of the Son' only, argue from John i. 18, that it was the Son, and not the Father, who appeared to all the patriarchs and saints of old, and thus anticipated his incarnation. They tell us, that the words no man hath seen God at any time' must refer to God the Father ; that they could not be predicated of the whole Trinity, i. e. of every person of it, for some divine person did evidently appear visibly to Moses, as mentioned in Exodus iii., xxiv., xxxiii., and xxxiv., and to the patriarchs in this very book of Genesis repeatedly ; and that the latter part of that verse (' the only-begotten of the Father, he bath declared him') implies that it was always the Son who did appear on those occasions ; and that those words of our Saviour were to be interpreted literally as well as spiritually, ' Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.'
Those, on the other hand, who understand St John's words as not referring to the Son especially, but to the Triune Jehovah generally, that is, to all and every one of the three persons, interpret these words as referring not so much to the object, as to the manner of vision. They understand them to mean, that no man hath as yet seen God, with his bodily eyes, since God is a spirit, and therefore he is in his nature ethereal and invisible to material organs ; that it is impossible that man should at any time have seen God, i. e. have taken cognizance of him with his external senses : for these are so constituted as only to take cognizance of matter, and God in his essence is certainly not material ; and although he may, and often has, assumed material forms as a vehicle of communication with man, yet seeing this material
90	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. III.
form could not be called seeing God.' All the patriarchs and prophets of old (say they) only attained to a recognition of the outward symbol or enigma in which the Deity, who was invisible, was, as it were, wrapped up. To support this interpretation, such texts as the following are quoted. In the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, and fifteenth and sixteenth verses, God was said, although he spoke to the people, not to appear to them by means of any similitude (i. e. of any external and visible form, such as existed in nature, and such as they could see therefore), for fear they should make such a similitude afterwards, and worship it.
Ye heard the voice,' says Moses, but saw no similitude.' But these words do not make any general assertion, but only of this particular instance to which they refer. However, they certainly do appear to belong to the scene related in the third chapter of Genesis, as much as if they were written of it expressly. For hearing appears to have been the only sense by which God's presence was perceived by Adam and Eve on that occasion. Those words of St Paul, taken from the seventeenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, are also alleged in proof of the spiritual
nature of God.	We ought not to think that the Godhead is
like to gold or silver or stone graven by art or man's device.' But this verse seems only to speak of God's general nature (which we all know to be immaterial), without asserting that he never assumed a temporary visible form. The words of St Paul, quoted from his sixth chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy : Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen nor can see,' certainly seem more to the point than any others. For they seem, at first sight, to say that no man hath at any time seen God (either Father, Son, or Holy Ghost), because their nature is too spiritual to admit of human vision taking cognizance of them. But might it not on this principle be denied that one man ever saw another ? For the essence and being of the man is his soul or mind, which no man has ever seen or will see in this world. Hence it might be said, with as much propriety, that no one man had seen another, as that no man had seen God, in this sense of the word. Others, who refer the word God' to all the three persons of the Trinity, understand it to refer, not to physical, but to intellectual or rather spiritual vision, and to mean seen adequately.' They illustrate this view of the words by that passage from Job
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	91
xi., Canst thou by searching find out God ? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection ? It is high as heaven, what canst thou do ? deeper than hell, what canst thou know ?' and by that other from the 146th Psalm, His greatness is unsearch-able.' But supposing the words to refer to the impossibility of our spiritually receiving the Triune Jehovah adequately, this will not be any bar to our understanding either the narrative before us as recorded in Genesis, or any subsequent one, as referring to an appearance of the Son.
Ver. 12. And the man said, The woman whom thou gayest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Some are of opinion that this implies that Adam had eaten out of affection for his wife ; and also as if he alluded to that saying of God's, It is not good for man that he should be alone,' as being falsified here, since it was his companion that led him into evil.
Ver. 14, 15. We now come to the divine sentence passed first on the serpent. And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou bast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field ; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life : and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
We have here a beautiful exemplification of the use and intent of prophecy. No sooner had man forfeited the happiness of Eden, and the privilege of that free communication with his Creator which he there enjoyed, than the prophetic announcement of future good about to accrue to him through the agency of a Redeemer, is granted to him. Whereas before the fall, perfect and happy, he needed no such consolations, and he consequently had none. A similar case this to what occurred in the Christian Church, when the Messiah was about to depart from his grieving and affectionate disciples, the promise of the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, was then given. And this consideration furnishes us with a powerful argument for referring this fifteenth verse to Christ, in spite of some commentators who persist in interpreting it of mankind in general. Against this last notion it has been argued, that no prophecy was needed to inform men that, on the one hand, serpents would bite their heels, whereas, on the other
J2	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII. III.
hand, they would avenge themselves on serpents' heads. This is so infinitely below the dignity of the occasion, and of the whole scene as detailed in Scripture, that we must at once dismiss it as the only allusion contained in the sentence, and seek some higher meaning. But when we extend our observations concerning it, and take cognizance of the probable object of the prophecy, namely, to comfort and support' our ancestors, as Bishop Sherlock beautifully observes, under their awful and severe judgment ;' and also the further object in the divine mind of upholding the cause of religion, which could not have been done without some such hopes,' and which would otherwise have foundered forthwith and for ever, we can hardly for a moment hesitate to apply it to the Redeemer.
But we have first to consider here the sentence pronounced by the Almighty upon the serpent, which forms part of the curse. In favour of the literal interpretation of these verses it may be urged, that the form of the serpent was once different from what it has since become, and far superior to its present form, since from Gen. iii. 1 and 14 we learn that it was once a beast of the field,' which was altogether distinct from reptiles or creeping things' (as we find from Gen. i. 24), to which category it now belongs. It has been urged also that the wisest human naturalists have been of opinion that there has always, since the fall, existed a mortal enmity between the human and the serpentine species. In favour of the tropical or secondary meaning, in addition to what has been urged above, the expression, bruising the head,' might be insisted upon as equivalent in Hebrew to
destroying the power ;' and the expression bruising the heel' as equivalent in Arabic, the cognate dialect, to suffering death,' or even suffering for sin.' In favour of the double interpretation, all that has been already said might be adduced as well, and the literal sense in its fulfilment might be made subservient to, and a pledge of, the fulfilment of the tropical one.
It might also be alleged that the words dust shalt thou eat' is equivalent to thou shalt lick the dust' which is used figuratively in Psalm xliv. 25 ; lxxii. 9 ; Isaiah xlix. 23 ; Micah vii. 17, &c. &c.
The Roman Catholics make this text a prophecy of the Virgin Mary, and erroneously read it site shall bruise,' &c. How they can make she' out of the masculine pronoun NIM he,' it is
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	93
difficult to see. The Arabic version seems to favour this rendering. Not so however the Syriac or the Chaldee paraphrase. Vide Walton's Polyglott in loco.
But as this principle of twofold interpretation has been much disputed, it would be well perhaps to bring forward, as concisely as possible, the arguments which have been adduced in its favour, with the answers that have been made to them by the advocates of the single sense ; more especially as there are several places in Genesis to which it will be desirable to assign a twofold meaning. Those readers who are opposed to this digression can pass on at once to verse 16.
It has ever been the object of the infidel to overthrow this principle, because many of the evidences in favour of the Christian religion drawn from prophecy are drawn from secondary applications. The Socinian was opposed to it, because many of those Old Testament prophecies which refer to Christ as a mighty God, and minutely describe his divine attributes, do so only in their secondary applications. It was, in fact, to overthrow this principle that the so-called philosophical principle of interpretation was brought forward by the founder of that sect. But as many excellent interpreters of Scripture have objected to this principle on different grounds, it would be well to consider some of their objections. One of the principal modern writers of this school is Dr Whiston', who seems strongly opposed to the belief in a double sense. His proposition is, that the style and language of the prophets, as it is often peculiar and enigmatical, so it is always singular and determinate, and not capable of those double intentions, and typical interpretations, which most of our late Christian expositors are so full of, upon all occasions.' In support of this proposition he advances several arguments. His first statement is, that a single and determinate sense is the only obvious one, and that no more can be omitted without putting a force upon plain words, and no more assented to by the minds of inquisitive men, without a mighty bias upon their rational faculties.' This statement appears to involve a 'petitio principii.' It is followed, however, by the assertion, that as in history there are no double senses thus allowed, so therefore should there be none in prophecy, because prophecy differs from history, only
1 Boyle Lectures, ch. x. sec. 1.
94	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. III.
inasmuch as it relates to time future, whereas history relates to time past. But prophecy and history are two totally and essentially different species of composition. The latter speaks to us of past events in a style intended to be understood by every man ; the former indicates to us future ones in a style often intentionally obscure, and so constructed as to conceal its revelations up to a given time, and only then to be deciphered in peculiar ways. In the case of the latter, then, how naturally should we be led to anticipate duplex interpretations, even although they existed not in the former ! How much more fitted is the enigmatical form of prophecy to admit of this sort of interpretation ! It seems likely that a being who wished to frame certain declarations so as to puzzle for a time all efforts at inquiry, so that no prophecy should be of self-interpretation,' but the events, as they occurred, should alone determine its meaning, with this end in view, should make them capable of more than one intention, in order the better to perplex the inquirers, and practically convince them of their own impotence in such matters.
But even in sacred history double meanings are sometimes attached to events. Thus St Peter tells us (1 Ep. iii. 20, 21), that the flood had a real and a typical meaning ; and many typical provisions under the Old Testament dispensation had the same. But Dr Whiston's second objection is, that a double sense once allowed, there is no limit, but men may insert meanings to infinity for any one given prophecy, and thus run into all kinds of enthusiasm in their interpretations. To this it might perhaps be replied, that a double sense is just as determinate and limited as a single one. But however this may be, the argument from abuse is surely no sound one.
Dr Whiston's third argument seems to be in effect as follows:
That we certainly have in the Old Testament many prophecies which need not to be explained on this principle, in order to be understood and appreciated, and that therefore the advocates of it weaken their cause by stretching their meaning further than is necessary, and expose themselves to the cavils of infidels, and to the objections of Jews by unnecessarily pushing them further than is absolutely requisite to support their cause.' Now this is, to a certain extent, a wise observation, and would serve as a very useful caution to those expositors who employ what might be termed the duplex principle, never to make use of any duplex
CII. III.	NOTES ON GENESIS.	95
interpretations, which cannot bear the test of rigid inquiry, simply because they happen to be pleasing or ingenious. But though this observation may be useful as a caution, yet it affords no valid objection to the principle itself.
Dr Whiston's fourth position is this, that the double sense of the ancient prophecies has not the least countenance in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists.' In support of this assertion, all that he advances are, two quotations from the New Testament, which contain references to Old Testament prophecies, which, he says, are not in favour of this principle, but against it ; which do not seem sufficient evidence for the case in point. And he proceeds to assert, that he remembers no instances of Old Testament prophecies quoted in the New Testament as having more than one meaning.
But the four following instances suggest themselves as opposed to this assertion. The first is taken from Hosea xi. 1, which is quoted in Matthew ii. 15, in a different sense from that in which it was originally used. In Hosea it refers to the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, and in St Matthew to Christ's temporary sojourn there. Professor Lee, however, translates the passage thus': ' For Israel (is but) a youth, yet I love him ; and from (the times of) Egypt I have named (him) my son.' According to this interpretation the prophet is not here speaking at all with reference to the deliverance of Israel, but merely of the fact of its adoption ; and the event recorded in St Matthew is in conformity with this fact. But Grotius2 explains the word vocavi' by exire jussi,' which is directly opposed to Dr Lee's use of the term. Dr Lee says that the Evangelist limits the prophecy positively to the one sense in which he applies it, but this does not appear from the narrative.
The second instance is taken from Isaiah x. 20, 22, where the prophet, speaking of the vengeance of the Lord which was about to come upon the Assyrian, tells us, in that day the remnant of Israel shall return ;' and therefore he adds, be not afraid of the Assyrian,' &c. This prophecy, in a primary sense, refers to the escape of the Jews from the Assyrian yoke, which took place
1 Professor Lee's Dissertations On Prophecy, Diss. ii. sec. 3, pp. 277.
2 Critici Sacri, Tom. m. Antwerp, folio, p. 895.
96	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. III.
subsequently in the reign of Sennacherib 1. And the context necessarily connects it with this event. If, therefore, it refer at all to the final restoration of the Jews, it must only do so in a secondary sense. Now St Paul quotes this prophecy (Romans ix. 27) as referring to the final temporal salvation of Israel. Professor Stuart indeed seems to consider this prophecy as referring, in its primary meaning, to the event to which St Paul refers it ; but he does not give any reasons for this supposition.
The third instance, although apparently passed over by Dr Lee, has been very ably considered by Bishop Warburton2. It is taken from the prophet Joel (i. 5 to ii. 10), who foretells at the same time an invasion of locusts, and also of the Assyrian army, their antitype, in such terms that the attentive reader must allow that both are equally predicted—some of the expressions referring necessarily only to the one subject, and others necessarily only to the other.
The fourth instance is taken from the Gospels (Matthew xxiii.; Mark xii. 34 ; Luke xvi. 25), it being our Saviour's well-known prediction of his first coming for the destruction of Jerusalem, and his second for the destruction of the world. For a full explanation of the two senses here intended, the reader may peruse not only Bishop Warburton's work, but also three sermons by Bishop Horsley on the subject. In both these two last cases the primary and secondary meanings are so interwoven as not to allow of Dr Lee's suggestion, that in most cases of this sort they are two distinct prophecies, brought together merely by the abruptness of the prophetic style, but all the time essentially different.
Dr Whiston's last argument is, that this double sense of prophecies, or the making one person or thing a type of the other, is a stranger to the most ancient fathers of the Church, and came in to salve the prejudices or mistakes of later times.' But so vague, and on many points unsatisfactory, are the works which are supposed to have reached us of the earlier apostolic Fathers, and so uncertain even in some cases their atttikentieity, that often little or nothing can be surely ascertained of their
1 See Bishop Louth, On Isaiah x. 5 ; Grotius, in Critici Sacri, (in loco); Assyrio Sennacherib.
2 Divine Legation of Moses, Vol. Is. Bk. vs. sec. 6, pp. 499-502.
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	97
opinions on such points'. When their opinions are determined on the subjects connected with the book of Genesis, they will be found quoted as they occur. Nor need we be surprised if, on the perusal of their entire works, we should meet with no instance of such principles being employed ; for the earliest propagators of the Gospel had higher and more important matters to contend for than the double or single sense of a prophecy in Scripture. Their task was to prepare the soil for the reception of subsequent truths, and a rugged one it was. Death and judgment, heaven and hell, were the awful themes of their mission ; and consequently we have little right to expect to find in their works theological niceties, which would have been as beauteous pearls cast before the swine of the heathen world at that time. The fact then (if fact it be) that in their works are not found allusions to such opinions, is nothing more than what, under existing circumstances, would have been anticipated, and would afford no argument for the late introduction of such meanings. But when we see instances of this species of interpretation in St Clement's first epistle to the Corinthians, as well as in that of St Barnabas ; when we see Irenmus, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine assigning such meanings, we may fairly be expected to dispute the truth of the entire statement.
The objections of infidels generally to this principle of interpretation may be said to be embodied by Collins, and have been ably exposed and controverted by the learned Bishop Warburton, in his Divine Legation of Moses. But there is one objection from an infidel source, which is too commonly adduced to allow of its being passed over in the present instance. It is said that the infidel brings as an argument against the divine origin of Scripture prophecy, the fact that it is made applicable to so many different things, as to be suitable to any different event which may occur : and thus to shew that it is a well-constructed imposture of man ; and objectors to the duplex principle bring this argument forward as shewing that its advocates, in supporting it, do much harm to the cause of revelation, which it lays open to the cavil of the sceptic. But the double sense of prophecy,' says Mr Davison, in his able lectures on the subject, is of all things the most remote from equivocation or fraud, and has its
Vide Rosenmillier, Historia Interpretationis, pars 1, ch. ii.
7
98	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. III.
ground and reason perfectly clear. For what is it ? not the convenient latitude of two unconnected senses, wide of each other, and giving room to a fallacious ambiguity ; but the combination of two related, analogous, and harmonizing, though separate subjects, each clear and definite in itself, implying a twofold truth in the prescience, and creating an aggravated difficulty, and thereby an accumulated proof, in their completion. For a case in point : to justify the predictions concerning the kingdom of David in their double force, it must be shewn of them that they hold in each of their relations, and in each were fulfilled ; so that the double sense of prophecy, in its true idea, is a check upon the pretences of vague and unappropriated predictions, rather than a door to admit them.'
This principle of interpretation, then, against which all existing or even possible objections seem to have been answered, is capable of two sorts of development. The first is when there exists in any prediction two meanings—the one literal, the other mystical, both of which are intended by the same words to be conveyed to the mind of the reader. This is what theologians term the allegorical principle, which, though inadmissible perhaps as far as regards the interpretation of the narrative conveyed in this chapter generally (though not certainly so), may possibly be admitted in interpreting this prophecy contained in it (in spite of Bishop Horsley's remark quoted above), as prophecy is so different a style of writing from history. This principle has already been noticed in the introductory remarks to the chapter. The other development of the double principle is, when a passage has two meanings : the one literal, which is not intended to be conveyed as important by the words ; the second moral, which alone is the intention of the statement. This is what Professor Pareau l calls the moral allegorical mode, in opposition to the other, which he terms the allegorical, in the sense of typical. Here, however, the expression double sense' will hardly serve to convey well the meaning. Dr Pye Smith finds fault with it on this ground, and suggests2 that the phrase double application' might be more suitable ; or Lord Bacon's springing and germinant accomplishment.' This last kind of double applica-
1 Pareau, Principles of Interpretation, Vol. T. p. 200, part u. ch. i. sec. 3.
2 Pye Smith's Lecture on Prophecy, p. 53, Rule xi.
CII. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	99
tion, as applied either to the narrative contained in the third chapter of Genesis, or even to the prophecy under consideration, ought, it would appear, to be totally repudiated.
Next in order comes the sentence passed upon the woman.
Ver. 16. I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception ; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children ; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
We have brought before us here, first, woman's sorrow. Of course this is principally fulfilled in child-bearing. Naturalists tell us that the pains of a woman in child-bearing are always greater than those of a brute under similar circumstances. And we have, secondly, woman's subjection. 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12.
The word nplvin means longing.' Arab. - 4 Compare
Cant. vii. 10.
Archdeacon Paley remarks (Nat. Theol. ch. xiv.) on the formation of milk in the breast of all viviparous animals, as a prospective contrivance of great moment affording a proof of a wise contriver. And surely in the adaptation to the chemical formation of this most nutritious substance, which human skill has not yet been able to imitate : in the organ provided for its reception and retention ; in the excretory ducts attached to that organ in Eve before the fall ; we have instances of a still more prospective contrivance, indicating a perfect foreknowledge of man's fall, and its consequences too. In fact, the fulfilling of this part of the curse was provided for at woman's creation.
Next comes the curse upon Adam, and for his sake upon the ground.
Ver. 17. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it : cursed is the ground for thy sake ; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
Here we learn (1) the nature of Adam's crime, not hearkening to the serpent, as was the case with Eve, but to the voice of his wife, which confirms what was said before ; (2) the curse pronounced on the ground for man's sake. Bishop Sherlock thought that this was taken off at the Flood. (Vide infra on Gen. —
v. 29).	It seems to imply,' says Dr Buckland, a diminished
excellency, and diminished abundance of its spontaneous fruits ; an increased capacity for the multiplication of plants noxious to
7-2
100	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII.
culture, and requiring to be controlled by human labour ; and an indispensable necessity for toil by the sweat of his brow, as the sole condition on which the productions of the earth were thenceforth to be attainable by man.' (Sermon On Death.)
Two laws,' says Mr Sharon Turner, are visibly in operation in nature : one, that it shall not produce enough spontaneously ; the other, that its produce shall be always increasable by human labour and skill. Ordinary but diligent exertions of these have hitherto abundantly sufficed for all that has been needed. Local .distress may arise from temporary seasons, and from want of intercourse, but never from a failure in the powers of vegetable nature.'
Ver. 18. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee ; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.
' To the thorn and the thistle, which are specified, we may perhaps add all plants whose qualities are poisonous, or in any way injurious,' says Mr Maitland.
The herb of the field, as opposed to the fruit of the trees of the garden, which was his food before.
Ver. 19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread. Mr Maitland adds to the other effects of the fall, (1) an ungenial state of the atmosphere, it being now subject to oppressive extremes and tempests ; (2) the presence of darkness. He thinks that before the fall the nights were not dark, because evil works are called works of darkness,' from its suitableness for their performance, and because in the description of the New Jerusalem we are told that there shall be no night there'?
When the Almighty pronounced this sentence, In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,' it is evident that He must have previously adapted the external creation to be artistically developed by man into bread (understanding the term bread to be used in its broad sense, as in Luke xi. 3, Deut. viii. 3.) For instance, the grain of corn was not only created as the embryo of the future plant, but it was adapted to the soil, and to human labour employed upon it on the one hand, and to the mill and the oven on the other. But not only was this true of literal bread, but also of all articles of food or clothing necessary for man's comfort ; of which, if we examine the raw material, we
1 Eruvin, Essay v. p. 120.
CIL III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	101
find it fitted by creation to be subsequently developed by the artistic labour of man. And it is in this broad sense of man's sustenance and convenience that the word bread is here used. Which ever kingdom of nature we investigate—the animal, vegetable, mineral, or gaseous—we shall find it abounding with striking instances in point. To dwell upon the animal kingdom, as affording instances to this effect, would be almost superfluous, since man's food and clothing is mainly the result of its adaptation to such purposes. If we refer to the vegetable world, we shall find it abounding with useful properties, which not only are conducive to the development of the arts, but many of which are even not available without the application of human skill and diligence, or only available in proportion to the quantity of it employed. From all this it seems as if the Deity had in view the future curse on man, when He framed those parts of the vegetable world. As a few striking instances of this class may be mentioned the Canadian birch-tree, the cocoa-nut tree, the sage-palm, the banana, the cotton-plant, and the flax, for purposes of clothing and furniture. All these are well described, in their numerous adaptations, by Sharon Turner (in his Sacred History of the World, Vol. i. Let. 6) ; also sea-weeds, as being adapted for the formation of soap and glass; and perhaps the whole vegetable world for medicine, in one form or other : very many plants possessing medicinal uses, not apparent at once, but only as the result of labour and art continuously applied to them. Then again we have the cases of peat, turf, and coal, for fuel ; and wood generally, combining as it does the greatest possible cohesion with the greatest lightness, and the greatest firmness compatible with flexibility, which wonderful combination of comparatively opposite qualities eminently fits it for purposes of art. This last instance may be seen ably and fully brought forward by Dean Cony beare (in the Appendix, No. I, to his Lectures on Theology, p. 103, &c.) Also the adaptation of coal for purposes of art might be instanced, —one bushel of coals containing virtue, properly consumed, to raise seventy millions of pounds weight a foot high. This branch of the subject may be seen beautifully worked out by Herschel (in his Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, p. 59, &c. chap. 3, sect. 49, &c.). And if we advert to the mineral kingdom, such instances as the properties of the loadstone (or lovestone, as it is called in many languages, from its powers of
102	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. III.
attraction, in others kalamite from its unmalleable properties,) fitting it for purposes of navigation ; the juxtaposition of the iron and coal strata, fitting the one to be more easily worked by means of the other ; and the malleability, ductility, and fusibility of metals, at once occur to us. Let us take iron as one instance out of many in point : how does it combine the highest degree of malleability, which renders it capable of being fashioned into every kind of instrument, with the highest degree of hardness, which fits it for being formed into the sharpest tools ! What a high degree of ductility too does it possess above all other metals ! and while called a simple element, incapable of decomposition or subdivision, how capable is it of a threefold modification, into cast iron, wrought iron, and steel ; the first possessing the carbon and oxygen, the second being deprived of both, and the third resuming a part of the carbon ! How useful, moreover, are its magnetic properties, which it possesses in common with oxygen, for purposes of art ! Lastly, if from the mineral kingdom we turn to the gaseous, what instances at once present themselves of adaptation to man's convenience and even to his very existence perhaps in a civilized state of society. Look at the hidden virtues of steam and air, which by their power of expansion minister to man's comforts and wants and necessities ; and of wind. Look at the useful properties, in a thousand different ways, of gunpowder and the other fulminating materials, enabling man to kill his prey, and blast rocks for building, and other like purposes ! look at the power of electricity and magnetism, as evidenced in a thousand galvanic, electric, and electro-magnetic arts ! Consider all these developments, and then at last will some just estimate be formed of the provision made throughout nature for the appointment that ' man should gain his bread by the sweat of his brow,' in other words, that he should support, maintain, and protect himself, under God, by the efforts of his own industry, intellectual and bodily. Such prospective contrivances, indeed, shew that ' known unto God were all his works from the beginning of the world.'
While noticing the adaptation of the external world to man's advantage in the employment of labour upon it, it would be well to notice also the conduciveness of man's labour to his own happiness as another phase in which the curse may be viewed. All living things, including men, are so constituted as to delight in
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	103
the exercise of their faculties. Moreover, idleness being the parent of vice and folly, labour tends to counteract the progress of these. Labour, or the exercise of man's faculties, also tends to improve his powers, and preserve their vigour and health. The necessity for man to labour for his own support makes him combine with his fellow for mutual help and comfort, makes him sociable, causes him to feel his dependence on others, and thus leads to the development of his social virtues, and to the combining for the purpose of discountenancing vice.
Till thou return unto the ground ; for out of it wast thou taken ; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And unto thy dust' (Samaritan version). Some think there is a force in this expression thy dust,' i. e. not the dust of Paradise, but the dust of the outer world, out of which thou wast made. Dr Prout (in his Bridgewater Treatise, p. 112. Calcium') tells us that lime is capable of forming part of a living organized being. This earth, together with phosphorus and oxygen, forms the basis of the bones of animals.'
And why does it say unto dust ? but because there is no such thing as destruction of matter. Our bodies therefore are often resolvable into dust ; never into nothing. Once having existed, they are indestructible. Neither the processes of rarefaction, decomposition, evaporation, solution, or even combustion, can destroy material substances.
The sentence refers, of course, only to our bodies. If the soul were to die with the body, how unjust would appear a God of holiness and justice ! How hateful would seem a God of love ! How many a tear of suffering saints, like Abel the first martyr, would drop unheeded ! How would the inequalities of life remain unequalized at last ! and never meet with their counterparts above How would the temporary prosperity of the powerful oppressor, or of the cunning and crafty man of this world, be accounted for ? But the body,' says Solomon, shall return to the dust, but the Spirit unto God who gave it.' With regard then to our bodies there will be a time with us all, in which the silver cord is loosed and the golden bowl is broken, and the pitcher is broken at the fountain, and the wheel is broken at the cistern,'—a time when the grave closes in upon all our airy fabrics ; for man goeth to his long home, and mourners go about the streets.' The body must count the grave its home,
104	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. III.
and say unto the worm, Thou art my sister and mother ;' we must all be as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again.' Soon must man's vigorous pulse cease to throb, and his eye, which is wont to kindle with such animation, and on whose retina heaven and earth are reflected in all their glorious beauties, become cold and glassy, and cease to reflect surrounding nature ; and his flush of health and joyousness, which in life now shades his cheek, assume a livid hue ; and his lip, during life, so expressive of scorn, contempt, or benignity, become rigid and motionless; and his mouth, so voluble in its contributions, decline into a sunken jaw that requires to be held up by a cloth ; and this, although they belong to the most peerless form that ever human eye beheld. But when the goodliness of men, and the glory of men' fades away like the grass, when the body returns unto the dust from which it came, then will the soul arise and shake herself.from_her prison fetters, and spread her wings for her eternal flight. And when the last dirge of all sublunary things has been long ago sung by the angelic choir—and deep again calls unto deep as heretofore at the noise of God's waterspouts—creation's busy hum having again yielded to the primaeval solitude and silence—when the planets shall have ceased to fulfil their appointed courses in their orbits—when the mineral, vegetable, and animal world shall become at last perhaps inoperate—then will the renewed immortal soul, 'together with angels and archangels, and all the glorious company of heaven, laud and magnify God's glorious name' for ever ; then will it string up its harp for higher and holier symphonies than ever occupied it here. And at last the souls of the righteous will exist within a far more glorious body, furnished with new organs perfectly adapted probably to their subsequent development. But our present bodies will have gone long ere this to the dust from which they sprung, and out of their ashes, phoenix like, a new one will have arisen. And then will the immortal soul live for ever in happiness or in misery—because, unlike the body, it proceeded immediately from God,—because it was a ray of that great celestial orb of light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,'—and to its original source and fountain it must return by the laws of its own being. And from the dust this body will be again recalled to join the soul at the sound of the archangel's trump (as says the prophet Ezekiel,
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	105
`Come from the four winds, 0 breath !') and, long after the very materials of which our present bodies are formed, have become incorporated with other mineral, vegetable, animal, nay, even human forms, and through these they may have returned to their mother-earth at last, to that dust from which baffled human ingenuity could never again sever them, yet will each separate atom distinctive of the individual, with a rapidity almost inconceivable, rush to fulfil the awful summons from whatever position on this habitable globe nature may since have assigned to it,—there to await this climax of the development of Almighty power. Thus is fulfilled that sentence which formed a part of the Adamic curse : Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.'
That opinion, however, held by many scientific men of the present day, ought not to be passed over here, which makes identity to consist only in outward configuration, since we are
all said to change every-seveft-years, and since our own bodies , '7,	;114/
chemically dissolve, and form, perhaps, parts of the bodies of successive races of responsible beings, so that it would become a question to whom they should belong at the resurrection. Our renovated ones may therefore only be the same as our present ones, in the same sense in which we call the flame of a candle, the same flame as it was the half hour previously, although it be every moment formed out of a new set of kindled particles, and a stream of water always the same stream though it be never composed of the same aqueous particles in any particular part through two successive moments. But I can quite conceive how the Almighty can fix upon certain ultimate molecules as constituting the identity of any body, and so watch over and control those that, amid all their numerous, nay, even infinite combinations, they may never form the distinctive features of any other human body, while their fellow atoms do so all around, and at last recall them at his own will and pleasure to the body which they originally characterized. Those who wish to follow out the much-disputed question as to what constitutes identity, and its bearing on this subject, must be referred to Locke's work On the Human Understanding ch. xxvii. ; to Cooper's Tract on Identity, Vol. i. Tracts, Ethical and Theological ; to a Discourse On Personal Identity, annexed to Bishop Butler's Analogy ; to Drews' work On the Resurrection of the Body ; and to many similar productions.
Milton tells us (in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine,
106	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. III.
ch. 13) that this sentence includes the death of the soul as well as the death of the body, that death cannot consist in the mere separation of soul and body, as is generally supposed ; for when that takes place the soul, as the opponents of this view confess, does not die ; and the body cannot die, because it confessedly never had life apart from the soul ; therefore he thinks that it must be the whole man (which is made up of both body and soul) which dies, as well as each separate component part of the whole man. In support of this theory he adduces the equity of the sentence, that as the whole man had sinned, the whole man should be punished. He also instances the following passages, amongst others of less importance, in confirmation of his view of the case : Gen. xxxvii. 35 ; Job iii. 12, 18 ; x. 21 ; xiv. 10, 13 ; xvii. 13 ; Psalm vi. 5 ; cxlvi. 4 ; Acts ii. 29, 34 ; Isai. xxxviii. 18, 19 ; Matt. ii. 18 ; Luke xx. 37, &c. ; Acts vii. 60 ; 1 Cor. xv. 17, 19, 29, 30, 32, 42, 50. Of these, all but the passages from Luke and from 1 Corinthians, might be interpreted on either supposition. His inferences from these two passages appear to be incorrect, or, at any rate, not at all necessary ones.
In support of the fact, that each separate component part dies, he adduces the following arguments : First, he says, that it is not at all likely, since God sentenced the whole man to death, that the spirit (which is the principal part of him) should escape the sentence. But, on the supposition that the spirit does not die, it still inherits a great part of the sentence passed on Adam. And it may be safely affirmed that it does die spiritually, which appears to be the only way in which the soul can die, although this state of spiritual death be not an irremediable one. Besides, as a consequence of this spiritual death, which separates it from the
favour of God in whom it lives and has its being, it suffers much sorrow in this probationary state—not physical sorrow or pain
like that predicted Of the woman, In sorrow shalt thou bring
forth children,' but mental sorrow in the withdrawal of the light of God's countenance, and as the result and effect of indwelling
and original sin. Therefore St Paul, speaking of the natural
state of the soul, says, that it is dead in trespasses and sins,' until the new life is infused into it by regeneration, and, in fact,
it is what Christ calls born again,' and in St Peter's words, begotten again unto a lively hope of the resurrection from the
dead.' Secondly, he considers that Ecclesiastes iii.	;
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	107
Psalm cxlvi. 4 ; Numb. xxiii. 10 ; Job xxxiii. 18 ; xxxvi. 14 ; Psalm xxii. 20 ; lxxviii. 50; lxxxix. 48 ; Isai. xxxviii. 17 ; Ezek.
xviii. 20 ; Matt. xxvi. 38 ; 1 Thess. iv. 13, 17 ; Dan. xii. 2 ;
John xi. 11, 13 ; Luke vii. 14,—are all in favour of the death of the soul. The advocates of the freedom of the soul from
death cite the following passages : Ps. xlix. 15 ; Matt. x. 28 ; Eccles. xii. 7 ; 1 Kings xvii. 21 (which form of expression is used of fainting in Judges xv. 19 ; Philip. i. 23), which is answered by referring it to the time mentioned in John xiv. 3 ; 1 Pet. iii. 19 ; which is answered by supposing the reference to an antediluvian period ; Rev. vi. 9, which is answered by supposing a reference to souls yet unborn ; Matt. xxvii. 52, 53 ; Luke xxiii. 43, 46 ; and Acts vii. 59, which is answered by Psalm xxxi. 5.
Bishop Horsley (Sermon xxxix.) refers to Gen. ii. 7, where the breath of life is said to come directly from God ; he then shews from Job xxxii. 8, that this breath of life is man's soul, since it is said to give him understanding ;' and he concludes by applying it to the elucidation of Ecclesiastes xii. 7, which is a description of the return of this same soul to God at the time of man's death. And he infers from a comparison of these two scriptural accounts of the beginning and end of man's life, that man's dissolution is owing to the separation of his soul and body; and that as this is the doctrine of both Moses and Solomon, it demands the implicit assent of every true believer, and that no philosophy is to be heard which would teach the contrary. Milton, however, has a great deal to say on the other side of the question, to which the reader must be referred, in order to judge for himself, as of course it would be unadvisable here to enter more fully into this important controversy than has been done already. Perhaps, after all that has been said on both sides, the following passages will seem to be positively inconsistent with the death of the soul ; Matt. x. 28 ; Eccles. xii. 7 ; 1 Kings xvii. 21 ;—nor is it at all plain that the death of the soul is even hinted at in the passage of Genesis, now under consideration.
Another apparently erroneous tenet appears to have been commonly held ; viz. that death is a penal infliction not only on man, but also on all the inferior creation ; and from this assumption some have inferred that the fossil remains of animals, which are said by geologists to have been pre-Adamic, are facts
108	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CIL III.
inconsistent with Scripture, because death was not introduced until Adam's time. But it is difficult to say on what part of Scripture this tenet, which makes the death of the lower animals a penal infliction, is founded. There is certainly no foundation
for it in the third chapter of Genesis.	Some consider that
Romans v. 12. and 1 Cor. xv. 21 imply it, but these are passages evidently restricted to the human race; others infer it from Rom. viii. 22. But the context renders it highly probable that even this verse refers to the whole human race, as composed of those who have the first-fruits of the spirit, and the heathen. The word KT;cris here translated the creation' is translated in the two preceding verses, 'the creature.' Also the expression, every creature' is used of the whole human race only' in Coloss. i. 23, and Mark xvi. 15. That death existed amongst animals before Adam's transgression we have abundant evidence in the fossil world, where one animal is often found in a fossil state in the stomach of another, both being imbedded in the rock or stratum. Professor Hitchcock has fully proved that all physiology and anatomy shew that death must necessarily have been coeval with life, death being a necessary law of all organized beings whether animal or vegetable (Religion of Geology, p. 75, &c. Lect. 3). Dr Pye Smith (Geology and Scripture, p. 262, Lect. vii. Pt. 2) justly remarks upon the idea, that there were animals inferior to man created in a state not liable to death, that this, if supposed, would involve the necessity of all being herbivorous; and further, that there were no minute and invisible animals inhabiting the leaves and fruits of plants, and which the feeders on vegetables must kill by myriads.'
Mr Sharon Turner, on the other hand, appears to hold that it was not impossible that all animals should have been herbivorous. He tells us that we have no right to affirm that the predatory tendency (of carnivorous animals) was the primitive law, or that either animals or men were in their first condition carnivorous. Their structure was prepared for this as their most lasting state, but can live in other habits. Carnivorous animals, notwithstanding their adapted claws, teeth, and intestines, may be brought up on vegetable produce : man can subsist wholly on plants or wholly on flesh, as he chooses. The prophetic writers of the Old Testament indicate that this destructive anomaly is not to be perpetual. In the last ages of earthly being, when
CII. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	109
wars and vices, sin and evil, are to depart from human society, the predatory system is also to cease in all the animal kingdom. It may therefore have some connexion with human immorality and its disturbing consequences, and with the new moral economy, that was established after the deluge' (Vol. T. Let. xiii. pp. 375, 376). Of this supposition however Dr Pye Smith says, Every physiologist must smile at its monstrous absurdity. A few species indeed are omnivorous ; and this circumstance has misled some persons. Cases also sometimes occur, in which the violation of natural habits has been imposed upon domesticated animals by artificial means ; but the healthy condition is sacrificed, and the effect is not permanent.'
The answer by Dr Pye Smith that the threatening of death implied a previous knowledge of its nature, does not appear to be so cogent as the others above quoted from him ; because it would apply equally in the case of Hell, with which the wicked are threatened, and of the nature of which they are very ignorant.
Unfounded as this tenet is which assigns the first appearance of death to the period of the fall, Milton appears to have held it. Vide Paradise Lost, Book i. 1. 1-3.
' Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe.'
And again, Book x. 1. 705, &c.
Thus began Outrage from lifeless things ; but Discord first, Daughter of Sin, among the irrational Death introduced, through fierce antipathy : Beast now with beast 'gan war, and fowl with fowl, And fish with fish: to graze the herb all leaving, Devoured each other.' ....
There is, however, one consideration in favour of the supposition, that the whole animal world partook of the curse. The curse pronounced on the serpent runs thus : Thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field,' which words seem to imply, at first sight, that the other animals, included in the titles of cattle' and beasts of the field,' were cursed in a less degree ; but this is not at all a necessary inference. And, moreover, the reason given here is, 'because thou hast done
110	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII. III.
this' which the other creatures had not done ; and also the effect of it is confined to the serpent alone : 'Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.'
Ver. 28. And Adam called his wife's name Eve ; because she was the mother of all living. Eve, ;1111, from 'II, 'living ;' Exod. ix. 3, Eccles. ii. 22, are similar instances of 1 being substituted for
He had before,' says Kennicott, called her woman, as her common name, or a name for her and all her sex, because she was taken out of man ; and now he called her Eve, because he had found she was still to be the mother of all living ; or, as some interpret it, because in her fall (and his consequent on hers) all men having become mortal, in her seed all men were to be made alive.' Eve, the mother of all living, a word,' observes Luther,
more eloquent than ever fell from the lips of Demosthenes.'
Chaldee : ' Mother of all the sons of men,' t•ttN
•
t•tVIN".11-7r1	Arabic : ' Mother of every rational living
T r •••	T •
5' .9
creature,' 44A,	JS	Vide Walton's Polyglott in loco.
Both these versions imply the unity of the whole human species.
Ver. 21. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Some who are opposed to the supposition that these skins were the skins of animals, offered up as whole burnt-offerings in sacrifice, which were given to Adam as the priest, think that these words should be translated and the Lord God made for Adam and his wife coverings of their skin.' In which case instead of `11ywe should have had t11r, says Kennicott. There is one place where the word 11y is perhaps used to signify the skin of man, namely, Exod. xxii. 27 ; but even then it is doubtful whether it refers to the skin of man or of a beast. And then it is used so differently from here, as not to be at all a parallel case, having both the 17 before and the pronoun after it. But Dr Lee makes IV to signify the skin of a man, in Exodus xxxiv. 30 ; Job ii. 4; xxx. 30; and Gesenius exemplifies Lev. xiii. 2, and Job vii. 5.
5
He derives it from -nr, 'naked,' cognate with Arab. jla.
Some think that this was the origin of the command in Lev.
vii. 8. The grant of animal food was not made to man till long
CH. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	111
afterwards, Gen. ix. 2, 3. These animals, therefore, were not slain for food ; nor is it likely that they could have been slain solely for clothing, because their hair, wool, and fur would have afforded this. Hence it behoves those who deny that they were slain for sacrifice, to shew what other purpose they were slain
for.	The opinion that the animals had died a natural death,'
says Mr Faber, is highly improbable ; for there is something revolting and abhorrent in the idea, that the skins of animals, thus defunct, and thence either putrid or approaching to putridity, should be employed for the purpose of raiment'? Archbishop Magee thinks that they had been too recently created, to suppose that they had died a natural death ; but surely they might have fallen a prey to wild beasts ; if indeed the wild beasts could find admission into Paradise. Some Rabbinical interpreters consider that the word (skin) IV only denotes the fur or wool of skins.
Ver. 22. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.
Justin Martyr applies the name of sophists to certain persons who contended that this expression was to be used figuratively ; not as spoken of two or more persons numerically distinct from each other. (Dialogue, p. 359, A., and Bishop of Lincoln's
Justin, p. 128.)	If there be any passage in the Old Testa-
ment,' says Dr Geddes, which countenances a plurality of the Godhead, it is this. He does not say simply like us, but, like one of us.' Dr Boothroyd makes a similar remark.
Walton says2 that the Chaldee paraphrase has Dixit verbum adonai ' sive Domini ' here. Onkelos renders the succeeding words, Behold man is become the only one on earth who, of himself, knoweth good and evil.' Aben Ezra objects to this rendering on grammatical grounds. Kennicott translates it hath been or behaved as if he were equal to one of us,' i. e. as to his knowledge of good and evil. He says is used in the sense of equality in state or dignity, in Ruth ii. 13. Noldius instances the following texts, 1 Chron. v. 2, and 1 Chron. xi. 21, as cases where means magis quam,' in the sense of dignity or value.
1 Faber, On the Three Dispensations, ch. v. Bk. 1. p. 197, Vol. 1.
2 Walton's Prolegomena, § 12, p. 439, Vol. I. Edidit. Wrangham.
112	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. III.
Some indeed think that the Eternal expressed himself here in irony or sarcasm, but this supposition is thought by others to be unworthy of the occasion. Glass (in his Philologia Sacra, Vol. p. 906, &c.) gives the following passages when God made use of irony on similar occasions : Deut. xxxii. 37, 38 ; Job xxxviii. 5, &c., 21, &c. ; Isai. xvii. 3, where glory' is ironically put for ignominy ;' Isai. xxix. 1 ; lvii. 12, 13 ; Jer. vii. 21 ; xi. 15 ; xxii. 20 ; 2 Kings xxiv. 7 ; Jer. xxii. 23 ; Ezek. xx. 39 ; xxviii. 3 ; Amos iv. 4, 5, 12 ; Neh. iii. 14 ; Zech. xi. 13 ; Matt. xxvi. 45 ; Mark vii. 9 ; John iii. 10 ; viii. 14 ; Luke xi. 41.
Bishop Warburton infers from these words, lest he live for ever,' that Adam was originally created mortal, and only conditionally immortal; and that to this original state he returned. Kennicott translates these words, instead of live for ever,' live happily all his days.' He refers to Psalm xxxviii. 19, and xxii. 26, to shew that 1:7"11 (the first place as translated and commented on by Bishop Patrick, the second by Poole in his Synopsis) sometimes is rendered living happily.'
ttvL), for ever,' is used frequently in Scripture for a
limited period, e. g. Exodus xxi. 6 ; 1 Sam. i. 22, &c.
Ver. 23. There is one important inference to be drawn from this history of the fall, which it would not be well to pass over here. It completely overthrows that gradual development theory of Lamarck and others, which has been lately defended by Professor Oken, and the reply to which, as deduced from the history of the fall, may be given in the words of Mr Miller : The belief,' says he, which is perhaps of all others most fundamentally essential to the revealed scheme of salvation', is the belief that God created man upright ; and that man, instead of proceeding onward and upward from this high and fair beginning to a yet higher and fairer standing in the scale of creation, sank and became morally lost and degraded. And hence the necessity for that second dispensation of recovery and restoration, which forms the entire burden of God's revealed message to man. If, according to the development theory, the progress of the first Adam was an upward progress, the existence of the second Adam that " happier man," according to Milton, whose special work it is "to
1 Footprints of the Creator, p. 16.
CH. 1H.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	113
restore " and " regain the blissful seat of the lapsed race," is simply a meaningless anomaly.'
Ver. 24. So he drove out the man ; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
What these Cherubims ' and flaming sword' were has been much discussed. It was generally thought that the Cheru-bims were angelic beings, armed with flaming swords. Kenni-cott says, The sacred writer evidently expresses himself by a Hendiadis here ; using the double expression of Cherubims and a flaming sword (or a pointed flame) instead of angels of a fiery appearance.' He refers to Psalm civ. 4, He maketh His angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.' Tertullian, Origen, and Thomas Aquinas thought that this fiery sword was the torrid zone. While others have held that it was the Shekinah or divine presence, where Cain and Abel afterwards came to offer their sacrifices.
Those who consider the flaming appearance to be the Sheki-nah, liken it to the fire in the bush which appeared to Moses. Some translate it thundering horses.' Keble, in his Christian Year, seems to have considered the fiery sword something material. He says—
' Therefore in sight of men bereft
The happy garden still was left,
The fiery sword that guarded shewed it too,
Turning all ways the world to teach,
That though, as yet, beyond our reach,
Still in its place the tree of life and glory grew.'
This passage in Genesis,' says Michaelis, is purely poeti-
cal.'	He placed before the garden cherubim (thundering horses)
and a flaming sword, to keep the way of the tree of life ; in plain terms the dread of the frequent tempests and daily thunders deterred men from that tract in which paradise was situated, lest they should eat of this tree of life'.'
It may have been some symbol of the Divine majesty as shewn forth in the covenant of redemption, which while it guarded the tree of life, pointed to it also as something at
1 Michaelis' notes to section 4 of Bishop Lowth's Lectures on Sacred Poetry.
8
114	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[cll. in.
a future day to be recovered by man, and skewed him how to recover it. It may have said to him in fact, To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God ' (Rev. ii. 27). It was this same symbol, perhaps, which was afterwards in the tabernacle as Israel's glory and defence in the wilderness, and in the temple of Solomon, and which was no longer needed when Christ was incarnate amongst them, when they beheld his glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.' Some make these cherubim the same as the cherubim under the Mosaic dispensation, which Bahr and after him Ilengstenberg I, among the Germans, consider to have been of the same origin with the Egyptian sphinxes. If so the sphinxes must have been taken from the cherubim, as probably the centaurs, satyrs, and other fabulous animals were ; and not the cherubim from the sphinxes, although the cherubim of Ezekiel (i. 10, and lxi. 18-20) might possibly have been borrowed from them. It seems not altogether improbable that the emblem of the Deity—a human figure with the wings and tail of a bird enclosed in a circle, which was adopted by the Persians, and is a type of Ormuzd on the monuments of Persepolis, and which is mentioned by Layard as found by him in the monuments of Nineveh (p. 92, Edition 1851), or those winged human headed lions mentioned by him (p. 52, ch. 3), might have taken their rise from these cherubims. The argument adduced by Bauer in favour of the foreign origin of the Mosaic cherubim, viz. that they were not first introduced by Moses, since the Law speaks of them in a manner that it could not do except on the supposition that they were already definitively known among the people, will only tend to illustrate their pre-Mosaic origin, and perhaps to connect them with the cherubim mentioned in this chapter. Mr Faber thinks that the monstrous phoceides, gorgons, and griffins with which iEschylus peopled the Caucasus, and the Simoorgh of the Persians, of which they make Caf the haunt, and the semi-eagle at the eastern avenue of the paradise of the Hindoos, in the recesses of their own Coosh or Caucasus, all spring from the cherubim at the east of Eden.
1 Hengstenberg, On Egypt and the Books of Muses, pp. 157, 158, pt. II. ch. 6.
CII. III.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	115
The word cherubim appears to be compounded of	as,' or
'like,' and 111 greatness ;' (T1 occurs frequently in Daniel, and twice in Ezek. ii. 10, and v. 8). Gesenius suggests that, if the word be of Semitic origin, 11,n may be derived by transposition from nn, a steed or courser.' Hyde (in his work on the Religion of the Persians), conjectures that it is the same with =11p, one near to God,' as His minister. Eichorn suggests
that	are the same with the .-ypi/Oes., or griffins of the
Persians, and derives the word from	to seize or
grasp.' (Vide Gesenius' Lexicon). The first of these derivatives will make the word to accord with the Shekinah.
The word ntrliltn, (from 17tbrI, vertere,') is in the
,-
Hithpael form of conjugation, and may be translated turning on itself.' It is rendered by Walton (in the Polyglott) in all the versions by versatilis,' except the Syriac, where he renders it,
qui se volutabit.' The word Cherubim occurs in the Syriac, Samaritan, Greek, Vulgate, Hebrew, and Chaldee pharaphrase.
In the Arabic it is simply	and not ur,k,ii;	. In
Syriac the word is IL0;.3. Now as the figure in Ezekiel con-
sisted of an ox in part, might not the derivation of it be 7  'aravit,' because an ox was used for that purpose ?
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 1. And Adam knew Eve his wife ; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.
SOME argue that Eve's conception took place immediately after her eating the forbidden fruit, from the fact that the conversive future y1,1 is not employed here, but Irr, the preterite, which is equivalent to plusquam perfectum.
Cain. Some derive this from mp, ,to acquire;' others from pp, to lament' or bewail,' in allusion to the pains of child-birth.
From the Lord	. Some translate this the Lord,
and tell us, that if it had been from the Lord, the words in the Hebrew would have been ritmt rit,;t, as in Deut. xviii. 3, and
Zech. xiv. 7.
8_2
116	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. IV.
The translators of Queen Elizabeth's bible rendered it in the margin, According to the Lord,' or according to the promise of the Lord.' ;IN means 'according to promise,' in Haggai ii.
4, 5. -These interpreters suppose Eve to have thought that Cain was the promised seed who should bruise the serpent's head. Faber, who is one of this class, renders it, I have gotten the man, even Jehovah his very self.' PN he renders ipse.'
Ver. 2. And she again bare his brother Abel. Kennicott
derives the word Abel from the Arabic ci.p, which signifies the being deprived by death, as a mother of her children.' He thinks also that this name was not given him until after his death probably ; but this notion seems opposed to what is said here'.
Others consider the word Abel to mean vanity,' or loss,' and yet the one who was called vanity turned out the blessed one, and the other who was mistaken, perhaps, for the Messiah, turned out a murderer. It has been conjectured that these two brothers were twins, as Scripture does not say that Eve conceived twice, but only that she bore twice.
And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of
the ground.	Thus,' remarks Lord Bacon, were these two
brothers devoted, one to the active, the other to the contemplative scenes of life.' Divine providence seems at once to have assigned them, moreover, scenes of action suited to their natural dispositions. The one bold, impetuous, and cunning too, (for that Cain combined both these qualities of mind the after history shews us), was doomed to sway the brute creation, to bring it under his control, untamed as it must have been at this period, with all its native wildness about it ; for which task his combination of bold-
ness and craftiness would evidently fit him—and to till the ground, which to be done with effect we know requires all the
active energies and superiority of mind of which man is capable.
While Abel, on the other hand, gentle and amiable, was set apart from the first for a life of contemplation. A solitary shep-
herd, he had great opportunities of looking up through nature to
nature's God—his occupation being rather of a passive than ah active description—of comparing the field of nature with those revelations which then existed and which probably he would receive from Adam, if not directly from Jehovah Himself—of seeing
I Vide Michaelis, Notes to Bishop Lowth's Lectures on Sacred Poetry,.
CII. IV.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	117
how day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge,' and then his mind satiated with great thoughts formed on a contemplation of nature's grandeur and beauty, had been led by the love therein displayed, to ascend still higher to the love shewn forth in God's promise to Eve, that her seed should one day bruise the serpent's head, and this meditation upon God's promise seems to have guided his subsequent conduct. In this process of thought perhaps Abel's mind was the typo of David's, the shepherd Psalmist, as described in Psalm xis. From this description of Cain, Mt1N 11;,, a tiller of the ground,' the Commentators on the seventh chapter of the Koran, relate an extraordinary story about Eve at the birth of Cain, which Mr Sale considers to arise purely out of this epithet as applied to him by Moses'.
Ver. 3, And in process of time, at the end of days' in the margin. Literally it is and it was at the end of days and Cain brought.' This form of expression, says Kennicott, with a vau at the beginning of each sentence, generally refers to a stated time. And the word rp, signifies an end precise and determinate. Kennicott thinks that this period was seven days in preference to a year, as in the latter case M=, and not lVt' would have been used. e. g. Gen. xvii. 21 ; Exodus xii. 41 ; xxiii. 16.
It came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
11t1Nri "lZt , 'of the fruit of the ground an offering.'
T	•	T	T • T	•
Buxtorf, Kennicott, Outram, Reland, Riede, and others, agree in
always confining the meaning of this word	to the ' un-
T •
bloody sacrifice,' as distinguished from the MIT, or bloody
sacrifice,' or mactation.' It is expressed in Latin by testa dona, or dapes, as opposed to victimce or hostice. It was a farinaceous offering. In proof of this fact Dr Kennicott refers to Exodus xxix. 38, &c. ; Leviticus ii. 1, &c. ; Numbers v. 18, as shewing that it always had this meaning in the books of Moses at least.
The Arabic root is t.A.41	donavit.' Some say that the offering
of bread and wine' is called a sacrifice by St Stephen, in Acts
vii. 42. And this of course was an unbloody one.'
Of what then was Cain's sacrifice expressive ? According to
I Sale's Koran, pp. 139, 140, cll.	Notes.
118	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. IV.
some, Cain's offering was an expression of thankfulness to his Creator and Preserver, for all his goodness to him ; and not only that, but the acknowledgement of the fact, that as all these blessings came from God, so they were all literally His own, after He had given them, to do with them as He pleased ; that it was in fact a declaration of fealty or homage on the whole, made by the paying of a part to the Supreme Being. And so far, they think, Cain's sacrifice was commendable ; but that it was faulty, not in what it did express, but in what it did not express—that it was rather deficient than superfluous. Others think that Cain's sacrifice was deficient in another important point, namely, the disposition of the offerer ; if not in that respect alone.
President Edwards (Notes on the Bible, § 344,) appears to have held both distinctions, one between the respective sacrifices and the other between the respective dispositions of the offerers, and probably this is the best view of the matter. He considers that Cain's offering was what is called in Isaiah (i. 13) a vain oblation.' Whereas Abel, as to his disposition, was righteous Abel ' (Matt. xxiii. 35).
It is a curious fact that the preeminence has been given among all nations and in all ages to animal sacrifice, over the simple Eucharistic sacrifice. The great sacrifice of the horse in India (the Aswameda) and of the bull (until it was prohibited) were of the former description. (Schlegel's Philos. of Hist. p. 200, c. 6.)
Ver. 4, 5. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering : but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Grotius tells us that Abel brought of the best of his flock, (that is) the wool from or of the best of his flock and the milk thereof, but there seems to be no evidence to support this meaning. Those who wish to see this opinion of Grotius ably examined and controverted may refer to Archbishop Magee's book on the
Atonement, notes, No. 59. His grace asserts that the word =L711 (although it is often used to signify milk as well as fat) yet is not used in that sense in a single passage of Scripture, when the sacrifice is spoken of and the offering is said to be =h,nr,
Nor does wool or milk ever appear to have been subsequently used in sacrifice, which in such a case, we should expect.
CH. Iv.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	119
Abel's, it is generally supposed, was a bloody sacrifice,' whether in addition to the unbloody one, or apart from it. At a later period every bullock, lamb, or goat, had its meat and drink offering attendant upon it, ordained by God. Bishop Jolly thinks' that the difference between the two offerings consisted principally if not solely in the disposition of the offerers, not in the difference between the sacrifices themselves. In support of this view of the case he quotes God's subsequent words to Cain. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ?' also that verse in the Proverbs of Solomon (xv. 8), The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord ;' and those words of St Paul, by faith Abel offered unto God, a more excellent sacrifice than Cain ;' and those words of St John (which he appears to consider as referring to Cain's disposition previously to his making the offering) Wherefore slew he him ? because his own works were wicked, and his brother's righteous?'
Some writers, with Cyril of Alexandria, lay the stress on the fact of Abel's bringing of the best' of his flock, while Cain, say they, selected the worst. But for this, there is no Scriptural or other evidence. Dr Kennicott, however, is of opinion that Abel's was a double oblation which consisted first of the ,i ICY,
or fruit of the ground,' and secondly, of the flesh and blood of animals. He understands the words translated in our version Abel, he also brought,' &c. as meaning Abel he brought also,' or in addition to this, another composed of the flesh and blood of animals.' He supports this interpretation by referring to Hebrews xi. 4, By faith Abel offered unto God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain' (71-Xeiova euaiav ;) which Wycliffe's version renders a much more sacrifice ;' which Hammond translates 'a sacrifice exceeding that of Cain ;' which Queen Elizabeth's version translates a greater sacrifice.' And he supports it also by the authority of the Seventy, Kai 'IA 136X lia7KE !cal at;7-8s, &c. ; and by asserting that the particle Ci cannot be joined to the word immediately before it, from the nature of its position and its connexion with a nominative case. His translation is, Cain brought of the fruit of the ground a mincha to Jehovah, and Abel brought (the same) ; he also (brought) of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat. And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his " mincha," and to Cain and to his " mincha " he had
On the Eucharist, ch. i.
120	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[C11. IV.
not respect.' He refers also to the word Sit;pois, gifts,' (in Heb. xi. 4), as shewing that there was a plurality of offerings on the part of Abel.
He tells us, moreover, that the word mincha must mean, as applied to Abel's sacrifice, what is said of it in Leviticus ii. 6, not an animal sacrifice, but a sacrifice of corn, &c. and that this accounts for the word being applied both to the sacrifice of Cain and that of Abel. But the word mincha, says Archbishop Magee (On the Atonement, note 62), is often used to denote animal sacrifices as well as flour offerings, e. g. 1 Kings xviii. 29, 36 ; 2 Kings iii. 20 ; Ezra ix. 4, 5 ; Judges vi. 18 ; and of animal sacrifices alone in 1 Sam. ii. 17 ; Mal. i. 13, 14. The Archbishop argues, in fact, at length, that the word mincha is generic, including both species.
How God spewed that He had respect' unto Abel's offering, we are not informed, but probably by fire from heaven, as in the case of Abraham, (Gen. xv. 17); of Manoah, (Judges xiii. 20) ; of Elijah, (1 Kings xviii. 38 ;) of Gideon, (Judges vi. 5); of Solomon, (2 Chron. vii. 1). Some render MrV by he kindled, as in
Psalm xx. 8.
According to Kennicott's view of the case, mere natural religion would have dictated Cain's offering, while Abel's additional animal sacrifice indicated his belief in a fact which natural religion would never have taught him, and which revelation or a direct message from God could alone supply. It seems antecedently probable that when God made the promise to Eve that `her seed should bruise the serpent's head,' that he should appoint some sign with it, as indicative of that arrangement, since such was His usual custom. The covenant not to destroy again by a flood, had its sign of a rainbow. The covenant with Abraham had its sign of a change of name of both Abraham and Sarah. God's chosen nation had many signs connected with the promises made to them. And if these minor matters were each connected with a sign or pledge, it seems unlikely that the great promise of a Redeemer should go without—the very hinge on which all man's eternal interests turned. Hence the probable connexion of animal sacrifice with the belief in the fulfilment of the first prophecy.
Thus Cain's omission of the animal sacrifice would shew his disbelief in this promise, while Abel's observance of it would show his faith. Thus St Jude (when speaking of certain false
cu. Iv.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	121
teachers which had crept into the Church, denying the Lord Jesus Christ as the foundation of their hope), says, Woe unto them ! for they have gone the way of Cain.' i. e. Woe unto them ! for they have rejected the seed of the woman, which could alone bruise the serpent's head for them, as Cain rejected Him.'
The question, How could Cain sin in not offering what God had not blessed him with, and how could Abel offer up fruits which God had not blessed him with ? Dr Kennicott answers by the supposition that they would exchange their different properties for purposes of food and raiment, and that therefore Cain by refusing to barter his goods for religious purposes, shewed his unbelief in the Almighty's promise.
Then we are told, Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And this plainly shews us, how men are led from one fault to another, even before they themselves are aware of it. Cain's sin, according to this view, at first was unbelief, and to this he soon added wrath and envy. Cain was wrath first with God for not accepting his sacrifice ; and secondly, with Abel because Abel's was accepted. Let us once indulge a feeling of hostility to God, and we shall soon indulge a feeling of hostility to our neighbour as well ; just as, on the other hand, love to God breeds love to our neighbour also. We must watch the first rising of this devilish passion of envy in our hearts, for if we give it the least advantage it will work by degrees insidiously until it takes our citidel at last ; once yield to it, and it will swell into a resistless torrent, whose mighty tide, carrying everything before it, washes reason, discretion, piety, and judgment down into its unfathomable abyss. Such was the case in the present instance, as the sequel will shew us. But God next condescends to expostulate with the culprit, as He has since done often with the sinner, by means of conscience, which is God's voice within us, as He did with Adam after the fall, and He says to him, (vv. 6, 7) Why art thou wroth ? and why is thy countenance fallen ? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? that is to say, there is no respect of persons with God, but every one that feareth him and worketh righteousness, shall be accepted of him.' And if thou doest not well, sin (that is, perhaps the damning sin of unbelief, the nursing mother of every other crime,') lieth at the door.
122	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII. IV.
The Septuagint renders it thus, ours Ea!) 0 peaT 7rpOOTI47Kin
upOws (3	4fitupres, ' If you should rightly offer, but
not rightly divide, would you not sin?'
Arnheim translates it thus, Whether thou bringest bounteous offerings or not.' Salomon renders it, Thou mayest bear it with good will, or not with good will.'
Raphel renders it, If thou doest well, canst thou not lift it up ?' Aben Ezra gives it thus, If thou doest well, canst thou not lift up thy countenance which now, from a sense of thy guilt, is downcast ?'
In accordance with this view would seem to be that translation of the words in Matthew's Bible (A.D. 1537), Let it be subdued unto thee, and see thou rule over it,' or (in the edition of 1585), sin doth provoke thee to kill thy brother : take heed, give no place to it : but resist it, and be lord over it.' Cran-mer's translation is to the same effect, and the Jerusalem Targum, and those of Onkelos, and Ben Uzziel, and the Arabic Version.
But if thou doest not well sin coucheth at the door.'	Not
at Cain's door, but at God's door,' says Jonathan Edwards.
Others consider this a caution to Cain against evil intentions. It represents sin like a wild beast lurking at the entrance and ready to spring in at the first slight opening.
Lightfoot, and many others after him, translate it thus, If thou doest not well a sin-offering coucheth at the door.'
Mr Davison says that the word ivrvi may be as properly rendered a sin-suffering,' or the punishment of sin,' as a sin-offering.' It is so rendered in Lamentations iv. 6, and in Zechariah xiv. 19. However, Mr Faber has shewnl that in these places it may be rendered either way, or in fact better by the word sin,' than sin's punishment,' whereas in Exodus xxx. 13 ; xxix. 14 ; Leviticus iv. 29 ; x. 17, it must necessarily be rendered an atonement for sin ;' and he denies that there is any passage where it must necessarily be rendered punishment for sin.' He says that in Proverbs x. 16, and Job v. 24, it might just as well be translated sin-offering,' or `atonement.' He affirms that in the two places (Gen. iv. 13, and Gen. xix. 15,) referred to by Bishop Patrick the word (mnri) does not occur at all, but itr is employed. He asserts that the only instance of
1 Faber, On Expiatory Sacrifice, pp. 85-112, ch. iii. sec. 3.
CH. Iv.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	123
construction of rwtri which will admit of the sense of punishment occurs in Numbers xxxii. 23, xviii. 22 ; Leviticus xx. 20, xxii. 9, xxiv. 15 ; Isaiah liii. 12 ; Numbers xii. 11 ; but that in none of these places is the sense of punishment necessary.
According then to this view, a sin offering (in the shape of a beast) coucheth at the door, and unto thee shall be its desire, and thou shalt rule over it (for purposes of life and death),' or, in other words, to thee this victim is submitted ; and thou mayest freely exercise over it the power of death.' Here then is a reference to an antecedent command, viz, to sacrifice a sin-offering. Hence the Divine origin and appointment of sacrifice. Faber gives this as an instance of antithetic poetry, thus
' Why is there hot anger unto thee ?
And why bath fallen thy countenance ?
If thou doest well, shall there not be exaltation ?
And, if thou doest not well, at the door a sin-offering is couching.
And unto thee is its desire ;
And thou shalt rule over it.'
Thus when we read that by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain ... and by it, he being dead, yet speaketh,' we understand the Apostle to mean faith in a divine revelation (which is necessarily involved in his definition of it, as ' the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,') or, in other words, it was faith in the necessity of devoting a sin-offering. Archbishop Magee makes a remark which confirms this view of the passage, (the same remark, his lordship tells us, was made by Parkhurst, Castalio, Dathe, and Rosenmiiller,) viz. that riNtorr, which is feminine, is here connected with a word of the masculine gender, rn, which, as Parkhurst judiciously observes, is perfectly consistent on the supposition that riNnrr represents a sin-offering ;' for then, according to a construction common in Hebrew, which refers the adjective, not to the word but to the thing understood by it, the masculine rl1 is here combined with the animal which was to be the sin-offering. Thus we find that wherever mnri means a sin-oler-ing it has a masculine adjunct, (e. g. Exodus xxix. 4 ; Levit. iv. 21, 24, v. 9) where wri is used instead of N'ri) and when it means only sin, it has the feminine adjective, (e. y. Gen. xviii. 20, xx. 9 ; Exod. xxxii. 21, 30). Vide note 67, on the Atonement.
124	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CM IV.
From this expression, unto thee shall be his desire,' being
used here, it is argued that the same expression as used in
Genesis, chapter iii. 16, cannot refer to sexual desire, as some have
thought.	It most probably signified obedience, as in Psalm
cxxiii. 2, derived perhaps from plv, to run about after anything. Cain then goes out from Jehovah's presence, smarting under the rebuke which he had just received, and vents all his wrath upon his unoffending brother. Envy fills his heart and he tries to pick up a quarrel with him, thereby verifying what St James says, Where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.'
Ver. 8. And Cain talked with Abel his brother : and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
The Samaritan version has the words also rfIVII rdn
Let us go into the field.' Many (as for instance, the authors of the Jerusalem Targum, the Chaldee Paraphrase, and that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel,) suppose that Cain entered into a discussion with Abel upon religious subjects, and they even proceed to specify the topics of their discourse ; while others think that Cain did this with Abel, as the Pharisees did with Christ, to see how far he could entangle him in his talk, probably to extort from him some pretext for a quarrel. Whether or not Abel afforded him this, Scripture does not inform us. It would seem, however, that he did not, or else Cain would have employed it as
a plea in extenuation of the murder.	Wrath is cruel,' says
Solomon, anger is outrageous, but who can stand before envy ?' Cain then probably exasperated, at the ill success of his plan, rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.' And in the case of this first murder and its consequences, we see a type of what has happened ever since.
Next comes the judgment which will always, sooner or later, follow upon crime. Ver. 9. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother ? And he said, I know not : am I my brother's keeper ? This question of God no more implied His ignorance of the fact of Abel's death, than His question to Adam, Where art thou ?' implied a wish to receive information on that point, or His question to Balaam, What men are these with thee ?' (Numbers xxii. 9). Some think that it was put in order to give Cain time to reflect and repent of his guilt.
CII. iv.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	125
And he said, I know not : am I my brother's keeper ?
In this answer we see plainly how one sin led to another. Unbelief produces hostility to God, hostility to God produces hostility to his brother, this breeds envy, envy begets every evil work, and with these murder, and this so hardens the heart that insolence follows from a worm to its maker, Am I my brother's keeper ?' Omit to check sin in its rise, and who shall answer for its after consequences ? Who can say to it, Thus far shall thy proud waves go and no further ?' The lordly oak, the monarch of the forest, was once an acorn, and in this state might have been crushed by an infant, but now its rough branches will turn the edge of the woodman's axe, and if he does not take care
will crush him also in its fall.	Despise not the day of small
things.' And what said Jehovah to Cain's answer
Ver. 10. And he said, What hast thou done? the voice
of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Cahen tells us that the word ' blood,' 'VI is often used in
the plural to express the blood of an innocent person being shed. Compare Psalm li. 16.
We have the language of this cry of blood in Rev. vi. 9, 10.
I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held : and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, 0 Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth ?'
Abel's tomb is still she wn near to Damascus, and the spot where Cain is said to have murdered him. Some think the word Damascus is derived from it, and means the kiss of blood.'
Ver. 11. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand.
And yet there was a sect of the Gnostics in the second century, who treated,' Mosheim 1 tells us, Cain, Cora, Dathan, the inhabitants of Sodom, and even the traitor Judas as saints, with the utmost marks of admiration and respect.' To what lengths will not religious enthusiasm carry men ! This sect was called Cainites.
Cain is cursed from the earth,' Adam was simply cursed.'
1 Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, Cent. u. sec. 18, ch. v.
126	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. Iv.
Ver. 12. When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
If we compare this curse on the ground with the former one made after the fall, we shall see that it was a double one. To Adam it was said, Cursed is the ground for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.' To Cain, When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength.'
Then Cain, first scathed with the forked vengeance of the Almighty, and writhing under His awful curse, says, ver. 13, illy punishment is greater than I can bear. Onkelos and the
Septuagint render '4, my crime ;' the word	to bear,'
some render to be pardoned,' as in Gen. xviii. 24, 26.
Ver. 14. Behold, thou bast driven me out this day from the face of the earth ; and from thy face shall I be hid ; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth ; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
This answer of Cain's discloses to us two important facts. First, that bad as Cain was, the power of conscience had not left him, and he even now mentions it as enhancing his punishment,
from thy face shall I be hid ,' and this very reminder of what was good within him, was left either by the Almighty to act as a sting when all sorrow was too late to do any good, as it will probably form one main element of the tortures of hell ; or else it was awakened within him to lead him to repentance and eternal salvation, when temporal salvation was gone for ever. This voice of God within us is in either case a powerful voice. Look at its workings in the case of king Saul, prostrating the energies of what was once a powerful mind, and reducing it to the condition of an awe-stricken maniac. Look at it in the case of Herod, after the murder of John the Baptist, inducing him to believe that the Saviour was the spirit of that mighty man returned to earth invested with reinforced power. Well might our first parents flee from God when they heard its voice within them. Well might David say under its stroke, Thine arrows stick fast in me, thine hand presseth me sore.' It is like the sword of the cherubim turning every way,' so as to hunt through all the labyrinthine mazes of the heart, and to meet all its paltry subterfuges with a sharp and sudden stroke. Well
CH. iv.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	127
might the archtraitor Judas go out and hang himself when the solemn music of a burdened conscience thrilled through every nerve of his soul. An enlightened conscience if heeded, is a blessing ; if slighted, a curse. Isaiah holds it out as a promise full
of comfort in the first instance.	Thine ears shall hear a word
behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.' But if, owing to the noise and clamour of things around us, or the deafening effect of tumultuous passion within, this voice of God is checked, then it becomes more and more silent, and gradually dies away as a warning, until at last it is resuscitated as a punishment, and then its sting is inflicted ; and the doomed sufferer bethinks him, though too late, of God's love unrequited, of his kindness unappreciated, of his truth hitherto unbelieved.
But the second fact, which displays itself in Cain's answer, is his extraordinary fear of death. Though sentenced to be a fugitive and a vagabond,' insomuch that, writhing under the deadly sting of conscience within, and misery without, by his wilful provocation of the Divine vengeance, which had rebounded upon himself, and loaded with the weight of his iniquities, having become an object of hatred equally to his God and his fellow men, he starts back at the prospect of his own decease. And who shall describe the feelings of the first murderer, when before him lay the corpse of righteous Abel,' first of the noble army of martyrs ? Death, before known to him only as a Divine threat, then stared him in the face, aye, and in its most horrible form too. It was not the calm smile that plays over the features of him who gently bequeaths his spirit into the hands of his Creator, until decay gradually sweeps it away ; but the piteous expression of butchered innocence, crying out for vengeance to the Almighty. And must not all the past, as it swept over him, in one concentrated moment of bitterness, seem to his feelings like a burning dream ? So short a time ago he was as happy perhaps in the love of God and his brother as fallen men could be, now an outcast from the love of both, when he looked forward to the dark valley of the shadow of death, instead of seeing an all-powerful hand stretched out in bold relief from the surrounding darkness for his support, he fears to die no less than he hates to live. Misery goads him on from behind, misery faces him in front.
Dr Lightfoot, however, renders this, Now therefore let it be
128	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CIL IV.
that any one that finds me may kill me ;' as if Cain wished for death, like Job, who said, Oh thou preserver of men ! why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself ?' and also, Oh that He would grant me the thing that I long for, that he would let loose his hand and cut me off !'
Ver. 15. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Onkelos translates this verse, After seven generations it shall be exacted from him,' supposing that Lamech, who was the father of the seventh generation from Adam, slew Cain. Some have thought that the mark set upon Cain was the black colour of the negro, and that it was continued after the flood in Japhet's family, who married one of Cain's descendants. Not in all Ja-phet's family certainly, nor even in all Ham's family ; if Ham be the person they mean, which is more likely : but how Cain's skin should on a sudden be made to abound more with pigmentary matter than Abel's, or Seth's did, they do not inform us. How-
ever they would perhaps make this mark miraculous.	And
there is an end of the matter.
Lest any one that met him in their detestation of the foul murderer should slay him, sevenfold vengeance was imprecated on the head of that man who did so, and further, upon his brow a mark was set, to brand him with universal infamy, that mark a type of the burning though stifled sorrow which consumed his heart within him.
Ver. 16. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Haunted by the voice of his brother's blood,' excluded from the favour of God, prevented from joining the sons of God' when they came into His presence, exposed to the abhorrence of all the pious, he went out from the presence of the Lord,' an outcast still wandering about with a burden at his heart, from the shackles of which lie could not free himself.
By this expression, went out from the presence of the Lord,' (compare Jonah i. 8), &c. Mr Faber understands, that Cain had dwelt previously in the immediate vicinity of the cherubim at the gate of paradise, and from this place he went out' where God was wont to reveal himself, that in fact Cain's banishment
CH. Iv.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	129
amounted to an excommunication, and that under this sentence of excommunication he gradually matured into avowed apostasy, that this apostasy consisted not so much, as Maimonides thinks, in a worship of the heavenly bodies, as in rejecting the vicarious sacrifices. He also thinks it probable that some daring attempt was made, at last by these apostates, at persecution of the pious, even in the very presence of the cherubim ; and then the flood came.
Sanchoniatho tells us that 'yvos, and Pycvja in a time of great drought lifted up their hands to the sun, whom they looked upon as sole God and sovereign of heaven.' This fyvos, and eyevja Bishop Cumberland shews to be Cain and his wife. (Remarks on Sanchoniatho, p. 219, &c.)
The land of Nod,' or of wandering,' or of exile.'
Ver. 17. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and bare Enoch : and he builded a city, and called the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
The word Enoch (1-1N) means dedication. From Cain's
building a city,' related here ; whereas in the 20th verse it is said that Jabal was the father of all such as live in tents, some have inferred that the pastoral life preceded the nomadic, that villages preceded tents, that agrarian pursuits preceded hunting, fishing, &c. ; (and consequently that division of labour existed from the beginning), in fact, that immediately after the fall, man continued the same kind of pursuits which he had had in Eden. Not so, however, Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, (Bk. v. ch. 1).
Ver. 19. And Lamech took unto him two wives : the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
There :appear to have been two Lamechs before the flood ; one the son of Methusael, the son of Mehujael, the son of Irad, the son of Enoch, the son of Cain ; the other the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth.
This Lamech, being in the line of Cain, affords no example of polygamy which could bear to be pleaded even for a moment. With regard to the polygamy of the patriarchs, the Bishop of Winchester remarks, that it seems no less easy to conceive that the Supreme Lawgiver might dispense with His own laws in the early ages of the world, for the sake of multiplying the popula-
9
130	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[Cl. IV.
tion in a quicker ratio, than that marriages between brothers and sisters might be then permitted on account of the paucity of inhabitants on the face of the earth. Yet the existence of the latter practice in the primeval ages has never been alleged as a sufficient authority for the intermarriage of so near relations, now that the reason for the original permission has ceased to operate 1.'
Here we see that it was Cain's descendant who first transgressed the original institution to Adam, of one wife. From the beginning,' says Christ, ' it was not so.'
The reason why Moses, in the genealogy of Cain, stopped at Lamech, is supposed to be because from the time of Naamah who was one of the children sprung from the union of the sons of God ' and the daughters of men,' this union became so common and occurred so frequently, that the two races were no longer distinct.
Ver. 21. And his brother's name was Jubal : he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. Dr Boothroyd tells us, that this expression the father of ' is a Hebraism for the inventor' of an art, or the founder' of a state.
In the simple discovery that any elastic body suddenly disturbed will return to its natural position by a series of isochronous vibrations, that these oscillations are communicated gradually to the surrounding atmosphere, and are either rotatory in every plane, or else confined to one plane, and accordingly produce corresponding undulations ; and that these are in harmony or discord with each other, in the case of more strings than one, according to the equality of time taken up by each, consists the principle of all music on stringed instruments ; and in the fact that a thick or a long string or tube, produces deep sounds, and a thin short string high ones, consists the principle of all stringed or wind instruments. This passage represents the art of music as beginning with stringed instruments, which is the natural order of things. Whenever we find any race, civilized or savage, secluded from others or not, there we find musical instruments, which tends to shew that it was coeval with men's existence,
1 Milton, On Christian Doctrine, by Sumner, 4to. 1825, Preliminary Observations, p. 32.
CH. Iv.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	131
and derived from some common source. The harp consisted sometimes of eight strings (Sheminith, Psalm vi. 1, xii. 1) Sometimes only of three. In the Egyptian hieroglyphics (according to Rosselini) there is an eight stringed harp, and many others. This organ (=13,7) at first, apparently, was only the shepherd's pipe ; it had one or two reeds of different lengths ; afterwards these were blown by a bag, it was then called the bagpipes ; then by a pair of bellows ; and now our modern organ has fifty or sixty or more pipes which are blown with the bellows, and it has stops and keys also.
Ver. 22. And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron : and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
This word (Tlerl) like the Greek xaXicOs. perhaps here, as ••
elsewhere, (especially Deut. viii. 9) ought to be translated copper. Brass is only a compound of zinc and copper. We have instances of the early use of this metal in Job xx. 24 ; Judges xvi. 21; Exodus xxxviii. 8.
That iron was known in Egypt in Moses' time appears from Levit. xxvi. 19 ; Deut. xxviii. 23, 48 ; iii. 11 ; Numb. xxxv. 16 ; Deut. xix. 15 ; xvii. 5. Wilkinson tells us, (Vol. i. p. 60, Egypt) that it is scarcely possibly that without tempered iron the hieroglyphics could have been cut deep into hard granite and basaltic rocks.' Herodotus (Book H. § 124) alludes to the use of iron in Egypt. The word instructor ' is translated in the margin whetter.'
Naamah means fair.' Perhaps she is mentioned, as being the first of the daughters of men' that was particularly fair. Had the knowledge of Alphabetic writing,' argues Dr Wall, been conveyed to man before the time of Moses, we have reason to think that Moses would have recorded the fact : for in the case of arts of far less interest, as having been arrived at without the aid of any miraculous interposition, he has here and elsewhere noticed their commencement.' (Vol. I. pt. i. ch. 2, p. 332, On the Orthography of the Jews).
Ver. 23, 24. And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice ; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech : for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly, Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
9-2
132	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. IV.
Dr Lamb explains it thus : Tubal the son of Lamech was a Cain or fratricide, and therefore was called Tubal-cain, and therefore Lamech the father of both murderer and murdered, says, that if, having lost one son he should now kill another for the murder, though indeed Tubal would be severely punished, yet he as his father, must suffer more than the culprit. (Hebrew Hieroglyphics, pp. 58, 59).
The word Zillah' means her shadow.'
Michaelis thinks that Lamech was a murderer ; that he repents of the fact, and hopes, after the example of Cain, to escape with impunity ; and with that hope he cheers his wives who are anxious for his fate. If Cain, who was a fratricide, was avenged sevenfold, surely Lamech seventy and sevenfold. This is perhaps the third specimen of antithetical poetry preserved by Moses. The first occurs in Gen. iii. 24 ; the second in Gen. iv. 6, 7. Some consider that Lamech had only committed a justifiable homicide in self defence, and that he contrasts this with the inexcusable fratricide of Cain. These explain because of my wound,' by because of a wound that I have received,' and because of my hurt,' by because of a hurt committed against me.' They quote Gen. xvi. 31 ; Gen. li. 35 ; Joel iv. 19 ; Isaiah liii. 11 ; Psalm cxxxix. 17 ; Isaiah xxi. 2 ; as instances of the affixes of nouns being taken actively as well as passively ; and 1 Kings xxii. 48 ; Numb. vi. 7, to shew that L, often means because.
Others again think that Lamech was no murderer, but that his polygamy exposed him to a particular quarrel perhaps with his brother, and that he comforts his wives with these verses, who fear lest he should be provoked into following the example of Cain. They translate : Yea one born among my kindred,' which they say is equivalent to my brother.'
Bishop Lowth translates it thus (Hebrew Poetry, Lect. 4) :
Hadah and Zillah hear my voice,
Ye wives of Lamech listen to my speech,
For I have slain a man because of my wounding ;
A young man because of my hurt.
If Cain shall be avenged seven times,
Surely Lamech seventy and seven.'
He terms it an instance of synonymous parallelism ; Bishop
Jebb, a cognate parallelism.
Some, however, look upon it thus, If I should slay a man,
CH. IV.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	133
or a young man, it would be to my wounding ; it would be to my hurt, for God would take vengeance on me much more severely than on Cain.' Others again understand it, I have slain a man to the wounding (of my conscience), a young man to the hurt (of my soul)' &c.
Another Jewish opinion is, that Lamech, who was blind, accidentally slew both Cain and Tubal-cain. Michaelis thinks that the idea of a double murder, (one of a youth, another of a man,) arose out of an ignorance of the nature of Hebrew poetry, and the parallelism of the sentences contained in it.
Finally, it has been supposed that Lamech, using one of the iron tools newly invented by Tubal-cain, killed one of his own sons unintentionally, and then says to his wives, I have slain a man who merely wounded or hurt me. So that if sevenfold vengeance was accorded to Cain, yet I have by these new tools the power of taking seventy and sevenfold.'
Frederic Von Schlegel supposes that Lamech, the introducer of polygamy, was also the founder of human sacrifices (of youths). This custom afterwards existed among the Phoenician nations, to the idol Moloch ; and in Carthage it was secretly practised under the Roman rule. The Greeks and Romans, Indians and Egyptians did it, and perhaps the Chinese were the only nations free
from it.	A confused anticipation,' says Schlegel, of a real
necessity and of a future reality, contributed to the institution of those sacrifices. Of that great mystery of truth which the holy patriarch of the Hebrews, with a prophetic intuition had discerned in the sacrifice of his well beloved son commanded him by God, but through the Divine mercy not consummated—of this great mystery we say, a diabolic imitation may have led to the human sacrifices by the early heathens.' (Philosophy of History, Lect. 6, pp. 201, 202).
Ver. 25. And Adam knew his wife again ; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth : For God, said she, path appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
In the second century there was a sect of the Gnostics called Sethites, who honoured Seth in a particular manner1, looking upon him as the same person with Christ. I1V., from ITV 'ap-
pointed.'
1 Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, ch. v. sec. 18, Cent. 2.
134	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[OH. Iv.
Ver. 26. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son ;
and he called his name Enos : then began men to call upon the
name of the Lord.
Enos ebtt cognate with v.,.; means 'man in general; ' as
liable to misfortune, misery, and death.	It differs,' says Dr
Lee, 'from rriN in that this has respect to his origin, from C,142 in that this respects his superiority, and from 11; or `1=
(Chaldee) in that these respect his courage.'—Vide Lexicon in verbum.
Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.
Maimonides thinks that this was the beginning of idolatry, and so Jerome says that the Jews thus understood it, that then men began to set up idols in the name of the Lord,' and profanely to call upon his name.
Some Jewish commentators fancy they see the origin of prayer to God by the ineffable name of "r1, pointed out here.
Dr Candlish (On Genesis, Comment. in loco, Vol. r.) considers that this applies to the godly, and intimates that a signal revival took place among them at this time.
It is translated in the margin, to call themselves by the name of the Lord,' which some consider to have been done to distinguish themselves from the family of Cain, as we find them called in Gen. vi. 2, the sons of God,' in opposition to the daughters of men,' the posterity of Cain.
It may mean,' says Philip Henry, to worship God in public assemblies, i. e. to meet together for worship.'
Some make the word then,' to refer to the birth of Enos ; others to the apostasy of Cain and Lamech.
President Edwards considers that in the days of Enos was the first remarkable outpouring of the spirit of prayer (whether in public or in private). On the phrase ' began,' he refers to 1 Sam. xiv. 35, margin : ileb. ii. 3, as illustrating its meaning, the first remarkable season of this kind.' On the phrase call upon the name of the Lord,' he refers to Zech. xii. 10 ; Zeph. iii. 9.
CH. v.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	135
CHAPTER V.
THE first verse of this Chapter is erroneously supposed by
	 some to refer to a different creation from that of Eve, as
related in ch. ii.
Ver. 2. And called their name Adam. Adam is here equivalent to genus homo. It is a generic term. In Numb. xxxi. 35, 40, 46, 47, women are called Adam ' (1211t) in the Hebrew.
Ver. 3. And begat a son in his own likeness, after his image. Here was the transmission of original sin. Perhaps this is said of Seth, and not of Cain and Abel, because it was necessary to shew, after what had occurred as related in the fourth chapter, of what sort was Seth, the new son born in the stead of Abel whom Cain slew. In Luke iii. 38, Adam is called the son of God.' Possibly between the birth of Cain and the birth of Seth, Adam and Eve had many other children, in accordance with the blessing, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.' Some think that Cain's remark (iv. 14, 15) seems to imply it.
Ver. 4. From this verse we may gather that the antediluvian world soon became very numerous, in obedience to the blessing or command of multiplication, and that there were consequently many other lines of descendants besides those mentioned here, which accounts for the cities, one at least of which is mentioned. The days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were 800 years, or 700 years according to the Septuagint.
Ver. 5. Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years : and he died. To account for these great ages of the early patriarchs some have supposed that the years here spoken of meant Lunar years, according to the Egyptian computation. But this could not be, because Moses especially distinguishes between months and years (in Gen. vii. 11). Moreover this computation by months instead of years, if applied to the whole period between the creation and the deluge, supposing it to be 1656 years, would reduce it to 138 years, for ten generations ; and as Noah lived 500 years before the flood, this computation would leave for nine generations only ninety-seven years ; and would make Enoch and Methuselah only five years and five months old when they had sons ; and Nahor only two years and five months when he
136	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. V.
begat Terah. Besides all antiquity corroborates the longevity of the patriarchs.
Others have tried to account for it by the innocency of their lives, but it belonged to bad and good alike. Others again have attributed it to their vegetable diet, but this has often been tried without producing great length of age, especially in monasteries. Burnet suggests that the change of climate which some suppose to have taken place at the time of the deluge, may have tended to shorten human life, the variety of the seasons being introduced at that time.. Immediately after the deluge the lives of the patriarchs decreased about one half, and subsequently to this period waned still more, as we find from Psalm xc. 10.
There appear to be three especially assignable reasons, amongst others, why God should have so ordained the length of man's life in the first ages of the world. First, for the greater multiplication of mankind—the deaths bearing a much smaller proportion to the births than now they do. Secondly, that tradition on important points might be correctly preserved from the beginning, Adam being thus kept alive for so many years to appeal to on these subjects.
A third and perhaps less important reason, is that a shorter period would clearly be insufficient to enable man to attain to any tolerable and useful, and perhaps necessary degree of civilization, by means of scientific or artistic attainment, in an age when science and art were necessarily both in their infancy. Science and art require for their development at first a series of consecutive and cumulative efforts, experiments, and deductions, which could certainly best, if not alone, by means of the long period of human life, be made. Afterwards this would not be needed ; as the more modern generations would have the conclusions of the more ancient ones to build upon. That the Creator intended man to attain to this civilization is evident from the fact of the prospective contrivances with which creation abounds, contrivances evidently adapted to the development of the arts on the application of mental power directing physical energies towards them. God intended that man should gain his bread by the sweat of his brow,' and He therefore made the four kingdoms, animal, vegetable, mineral, and gaseous, subordinate to man's use, in preparing his bread, &c. But this has been treated of before. See note on Gen. iii. 19.
CH. v.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	137
Now this degree of civilization which it is thus evident that the Creator intended man to arrive at, could best, if not only, be arrived at by this means. For if we consider that the isolated genius of any one single man could never skip from conclusion to conclusion by its own innate power, with the rapidity that it could learn to follow in the wake of others, since each of these conclusions perhaps would take, and have taken at least a century or more to build up, as the result of laborious thought joined to happy accident ; for what is called accident, strange to say, has often promoted science :—if we consider that the human intellect which did not lean upon its predecessors would never advance ; and each branch of science and art would represent merely the paltry light of a single intelligence thrown upon it, and that perhaps not the fittest to bring out its hidden truths, instead of, as it now does, the most acute divoveries of a myriad minds in different ages all directed to it from different points, like so many converging rays to one focus of brilliant light :—if we consider that were each man to wait to clothe and house himself comfortably until he could do it of his own unassisted abilities, in a life of sixty or even eighty years, scorning to rely upon the wisdom of those who have gone before him, that he would never do it in that time, even supposing the raw material to be always at hand : —when we consider all this, we can see how necessary it was, humanly speaking, that the life of man should be prolonged in the first ages of the world, when science and art were alike in their infancy.
Ver. 9. And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan. The Septuagint has 190 years. Maimonides (Lib. i. De Ido-latria) says, The first rise of idolatry is to be referred to the days of Enoch when men (taking notice how God had created the stars and spheres for the government of the world, and by placing them in so eminent a state, seemed to make them partakers of his honour, and used them as his ministers and officers) resolved it their duty to laud and extol and honour them, and taught others that this was the will of God, that we should magnify and worship those whom He had preferred and dignified (as a king would have his ministers honoured) and that that is the honouring of God. Upon this foundation they began to build temples to the stars, to sacrifice to them, bow themselves before them, that by so doing they might obtain God's favour, and this
138	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. V.
was the ground of idolatry, not that they thought there was no God but the stars, but that they thought this worship performed to them to be the will of God,' &c. &c. (Vide also Hammond's Tracts, Vol. v. p. 5, 4to. 1646).
Ver. 12. Seventy years, Septuagint 170. The Septuagint readings are often different in the cases of the ages of these patriarchs, at the birth of their sons, but not at the time of their deaths. The Septuagint adding one hundred years to the age of six of these at the time of the birth of the sons here mentioned, but taking it away from their subsequent ages, so that the total in each case amounts to the same.
However, the LXX. make the time from the Creation to the flood 2256 years, whereas the Hebrew text makes it 1656. It is possible that the characters which stood for the numbers, either in the Hebrew or in the Greek, might have been mistaken. Cresswell in his chronological table (Harmony of the Gospels, Vol. iir. Appendix) gives the date of the Deluge as the spring of the year 2348, B. C.
Ver. 21, &c. Enoch.
The .Ethiopians have in their Calendar,' says Heylin (in his History of the Sabbath, pt. 1. ch. 2. p. 38), 'a pericd which they call Enoch's sabbath, which consisted of 700 years, and it was so called, either because Enoch was born in the 7th century from the Creation, or else because he was the seventh from Adam.'
The first thing which presents itself to our notice in this description is the life of this patriarch. In the first part of it he was possibly not allied closely to either of the two parties then existing, though more to one than the other, to the descendants of Abel rather than those of Cain. Then for 300 years after the birth of Methuselah it is positively affirmed of him that he walked with God.' This the Apostle Paul illustrates by telling the Hebrews that he pleased God' (Heb. xi. 5). During this period it is more than probable that Enoch sustained the character of a preacher of righteousness and a prophet, and that he was succeeded in his office by Noah, by whom Peter (1 Pet. i. 11) tells us that Christ preached to the disobedient spirits.' This expression, walked with God,' is used of executing the priest's office in 1 Sam. ii. 30, 35. It appears to be equivalent, however, to the phrase walked before God' used in Psalm lvi. 13 ; walked after God,' Hosea xi. 10 ; and walked
CH. v.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	139
with God,' Gen. vi. 9. Probably he received the second revelation made posterior to the Creation (Adam having received the first)—a revelation suited to the emergency which arose in his time, when the descendants of Cain had wholly separated themselves from the sons of God, and perhaps not only kept aloof from them, but even persecuted them. That the nature of this revelation was an intimation of Christ's coming to judgment, either at the flood or at the end of the world, or of both events, and that Enoch made use of this to warn the ungodly of his time, we learn from Jude 14, 15, who says, And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of them, saying, Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'
Many think that these hard speeches' here spoken of amounted to the denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ,' which is predicated (in the fourth verse of the Epistle) of those who were said to have gone the way of Cain.' Some have thought that this was a quotation on the part of the Apostle from the apocryphal book of Enoch, said to have been written by him. But the general opinion is that this book was not written by Enoch at all. Dr Laurence, in his preface to the translation of this book from the Ethiopic MS. found in Abyssinia by Bruce, gives the following opinion concerning it :—that it existed in the Church until the 8th century, when it was lost sight of, but that, with the exception of Tertullian, the whole Jewish and Christian Church considered it apocryphal—that it was never doubted that St Jude alluded to it—that it was received by the Cabbalists—occasional references being made to it in their philosophical commentary entitled Zohar.' He seems to infer from its use of certain expressions which occur also in the prophecies of Daniel, that it was written subsequently to that book ; but this does not appear to be a necessary consequence. He also considers, from the use of the word Parthians' in this book, that it could not have been written until the cha-racteristical name of that people became more correctly known by their frequent incursions into the western parts of Asia. Before this time they were called Persians.' He thinks also that a passage which occurs in chap. iv. ver. 10, seems to prove
140	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. V.
that it was not written until the reign of Herod. Some, however, have rather wildly imagined that Jude took Enoch's prophecy from the writings of Zoroaster 1. Tertullian (de Idolatria, ch. 15, and de Cultu Fcerninarum, Lib. it. c. 10) quotes more than once,' says Bp. Kaye2, the prophecy of Enoch. In one place he admits that it was not received into the Jewish canon ; but supposes that the Jews rejected it merely because they were unable to account for its having survived the deluge. He argues therefore that Noah might have received it from his great grandfather Enoch, and handed it down to posterity ; or, if it was actually lost at the deluge, Noah might have restored it from immediate revelation, as Ezra restored the whole Jewish Scripture. Perhaps, he adds, the Jews reject it because it contains a prediction of Christ's advent : at any rate the reference to it made by the Apostle Jude ought to quiet all our doubts respecting its genuineness.' Grotius has the following remark upon the passage in St Jude : Credo initio librum fuisse exiguum, sed cum tempore quemque ea quse voluit ei addidisse ut in libris illis abstrusionibus factum est snipe.'
Enoch is thought to have uttered a prophecy in calling his son Methuselah, for Bochart tells us that Methuselah signifies that when the person was dead who was so called, then should follow an inundation of waters,' and that the flood came the very year in which Methuselah died. But it is possible, though not probable, that this name should have been given to him long after wards.
Ver. 24. He was not, for God took him.
Some Jewish commentators have understood this to mean
that God took him by death, because the word rtp17, took,' is applied to death in Ezekiel xxi v. 16, 18.
But St Paul explains it differently. He tells the Hebrews that he was translated that he should not see death.' The expression Ka; 01;K: Et1 ptCTKTO of St Paul, seems to point to an occurrence similar to that which happened after Elijah's translation (2 Kings ii. 11). But it need not necessarily mean anything more than the expression used in Psalm xxxix. 13.
Horne's Introduction, Vol. iv. p. 476. Pt. H. ch. iv. sec. 7.
2 Bishop Kaye's Ecclesiastical History of 2nd and 3rd centuries,
illustrated from Tertullian, ch. 5, p. 310.
Cll. v.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	141
Bishop Warburton thinks that Moses intentionally made the account of Enoch's translation obscure, because it was not his aim to make the revelation of a future state too clear, at the time he wrote, and thus accounts for the difference between this abrupt narrative in the one case, and the full one of Elijah's translation (in 2 Kings xi. 1-11).
How far Moses himself enjoyed the same privilege as Enoch and Elijah is much disputed. That he died is indisputable ; but many think from the mystery of his burial alluded to in the 34th chapter of Deuteronomy—from the strife about his body mentioned in Jude 9—from his appearance with Elijah narrated in Matt. xvii. 3—that he had an immediate resurrection of the body. At any rate the cases of Enoch and Elijah were similar under the Old Testament dispensation, as types of Christ's resurrection, the one under the patriarchal the other in the Levitical dispensation. And the translation of Enoch was the first restoration of the body that occurred in the world. To those who wonder why Enoch did not appear in company with Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration, it may be replied that probably their discourse with Christ was only about the fulfilling of the Levitical law in His death, which Enoch did not know when on earth.
And perhaps Moses and Elias were especially selected, because they had been both mentioned in prophecy, with reference to Christ's coming. Christ was to be preceded by the antitype of the latter (John the Baptist) and to be himself the antitype of the former, Deut. xviii. 15, 18. Some have thought that the two witnesses mentioned in Rev. xi. 3-5, were Enoch and Elijah. There was nothing more wonderful in the sudden translation of these two men, than will occur when we shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump.'
The name of Enoch is twice mentioned in Scripture besides (1 Chron. i. and Luke iii.), and once in Ecclesiasticus xliv. 16.
Ver. 29. And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hash cursed.
There have been various explanations of this name Noah (M), and the prophecy of Lamech connected with it. There
are two roots from which the Hebrew word might be derived.
142	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. V.
The one is tr1.1, to comfort,' the other	to rest.' The
meaning (comfort) is supported by a passage in the apocryphal book of Enoch, which Dr Laurence assigns to the period of the captivity. We there read in the 105th chapter and 20th verse,
When Methuselah heard the word of his father Enoch, who had shewn him every secret thing, he returned with understanding, and called the name of that child Noah ; because he was to console the earth on account of all its destruction.'
Some have thought that Lamech gave this name to Noah, fancying that he would prove the promised Messiah.
Dr Candlish' thinks that the afflicted seed of Seth looked forward to the time when the curse being taken away, the face of the earth would be renewed,' mentioned in Psalm civ. 30, and the creation delivered from its subjection to vanity, Rom. viii. 20, 21.
Dr 0 wen2 considered that Lamech looked forward to relief by means of Noah from the effect of the curse, (1) in the just destruction of the wicked world, wherein the earth for awhile would have rest from the bondage under which it groaned (Rom. viii. 22), and (2) in the preservation through him of the seed of the Redeemer.
Arnheim's3 opinion is that in Noah, who is the first after Cain, who is described as cultivating the ground,' man would be freed from the curse pronounced on the ground on account of Cain, in consequence of which they wandered from one pasture to another, depending on the milk of their flocks and herds.
Jonathan Edwards4 thinks that Noah was a comfort (i) in that in him was to be descended the Redeemer, (2) in that he invented wine, (3) in that to him was given the grant to eat flesh, (4) in that after the flood God set a limit to Noah of his curse on the ground.
Bishop Sherlock5 thought that these words of Lamech referred to the fulfilling of, and therefore release from, the curse
I Candlish, On Genesis, Vol. 1. p. 166.
2 Owen, On Hebrews, Vol. I. p. 395, ch. xi. v. 7.
3 Vide Lindenthal, On Genesis, note in loco.
4 Notes on Bible, note in loco.
5 Sherlock's Works, Vol. iv. pp. 67-81, discourse 4, On Prophecy.
CH. v.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	143
in Noah's time. Those words to Noah, With thee will I establish my covenant,' he refers to the delivery from the curse. From these words (Gen. viii. 2), I will not again any more curse the ground for man's sake,' he infers first that the flood was the effect of that curse pronounced against the earth for man's sake, and secondly, that the old curse was fully executed and accomplished in the flood, in consequence of which discharge a new blessing is immediately pronounced on the earth (Gen.
22), called a covenant between God and the earth (Gen.
13), and with Noah and his seed and every living creature (Gen. ix. 8-10). He also shews that the blessings first bestowed upon Adam in paradise and lost at the fall, were renewed with Noah in full after the flood, if not increased in some instances, from a comparison of Gen. i. 28 with Gen. ix. 1, 2, and Gen. i. 10 with Gen. ix. 3, and Gen. i. 11 with Gen. viii. 22, and Gen. i. 14 with Gen. viii. 22. He considers the following texts to contain allusions to those restored blessings : Wisdom xliv. 18 ; Jeremiah xxxiii. 20, 21, 25 ; Isaiah liv. 9 ; Psalm lxv. His lordship considers that the descriptions of the promised land of Canaan were not applicable to a land under the curse, and that therefore the curse must have been removed from the earth when these were made.
CHAPTER VI.
Ver. 1, 2. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
HE Sons of God.' Hebrew : 1:1147M1	LXX : tiCoi Tot)
-I- Coca. Vulgate: 'FM Dei.' Targum Onkelos: N-111n"=
: : -	•• • •
Arabic :	which Walton renders filii illustrium.'
Syriac :	Vide Walton's Polyglott.
The question, Who were these sons of God ?' and who were
these daughters of men ?' must be first considered, before in-
144	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. -VI.
quiry is made into the nature of the intermarriage between them, which is here stated to have taken place. The different opinions concerning them appear to be as follows. Some' have thought that the daughters of men' were the wicked descendants of Cain, and the sons of God' the pious descendants of Seth; who no longer kept themselves aloof from each other, but intermarried.
Others2 appear to have considered that by the sons of God' were meant the great men, nobles, rulers and judges of the land, who being captivated by the beauty of the daughters of men,' (that is) of the meaner sort, took by force or violence as many as they pleased.
But Mr Maitland argues that these opinions take a great deal for granted that is hardly probable, or at any rate of which we have not any certain knowledge3. He tells us that the title sons of God' only occurs exactly in this form in three places of the Old Testament (Job i. 6, ii. 1, xxxvii. 7), where no one supposes it to mean other than angels ; he understands the similar expressions in the Hebrew translated ' mighty,' and sons of the mighty' (in Ps. xxix. 1, lxxxix. 6) as referring to the angels. He asserts that this title is nowhere given to men in the Old Testament. He thinks that in Hosea i. 10, and always in the New Testament, it is employed proleptically of those men who shall one day be equal to the angels and the sons of God (Luke xx. 36). He tells us that the Jewish Church understood it of the angels, that in Augustine's time the majority of the
MSS. of the LXX. render t'1147t'it".11, by a'77eXol Tot) 061;11, that the Coclex Alexandrinus has this version, that Philo Judxus so understood it, and Josephus and the book of Enoch (which Dr Laurence thinks was written perhaps by a Jew before the Christian tura), and the early Christian Church, (e. g.) Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenmus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Methodius, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose and Sulpicius Severus.
1 Mant and D'Oylcy in loco.
2 Vide Scott, Stackhouse, Patrick, in loco.—Edwards' History of Redemption, period 1. pt. 1, &c.
3 Eruvin, Essay vi.
CH. VI.1	NOTES ON GENESIS.	145
In answer to this, it may be replied, that it does not seem at all probable that in Job i. 6, and ii. 1, the expression should refer to angels. Dr Kennicott remarks, If we allow that the assembly here described was real, and should affirm that by the sons of God' are meant the angels of heaven ; it will be difficult perhaps to assign the place of this assembly. If we say that it was in heaven, it may be asked, how could Satan ascend thither, and be readmitted among the blessed angels, from whose company he had been banished for ever by a divine decree ? If we say, it was on earth, it will not be easy to explain or conceive the manner how, and the occasion why, this assembly (of God, angels, and Satan) was held. Whereas on the supposition that the sons of God ' mean here persons professing the true worship of God, the passage will perhaps be much clearer and more agreeable to reason as well as Scripture ; for both these inform us, that the tempter is more diligent in his attempts upon mankind at their solemn times .of devotion ; and therefore the son of Sirach advises, My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for temptation.'
Mr Maitland, moreover, passes over Luke iii. 38, which says of Adam, which was the son of God.' And also our own marginal reading of Gen. iv. 6, Then began men to call themseleves by the name of the Lord.' If this term be applied in Matt. v. 45 ; 2 Cor. vi. 18 ; and Romans ix. 26, to men, why might it not be used of men' in the Old Testament, and indeed the expression used in Deut. xiv. 1, comes very near it. He passes over the assertion of Chrysostom, moreover, (Homily xxii. in Gen. vi.) that the angels are nowhere called the sons of God in Scripture.'
Mr Maitland also is very severe upon the whole army of modern commentators because they mix up fiction with truth, and perhaps not without some reason, and yet he quotes in support of his opinion some of the ancient commentators who are by no means exempt from this fault. For instance, Bishop Kaye 1, (in his account of Tertullian's opinions) says, These spiritual or angelic substances were originally created to be the ministers of the Divine will ; but some were betrayed into transgression. Smitten with the beauty of the daughters of men,
1 Bishop of Lincoln's Tertullian, p. 215, Edit. 1835.
10
146	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. VI.
they descended from heaven, and imparted many branches of knowledge, revealed to themselves, but hitherto hidden from mankind ; the properties of metals, the virtues of herbs, the powers of enchantment, and the arts of divination and astrology. Out of complaisance also to their earthly brides, they communicated the arts which administered to female vanity, of polishing and setting precious stones, of dying wool, of preparing cosmetics V
In the book of Enoch (ch. vii. and viii.) we are favoured with the names not only of the angels, but also of the arts and sciences which they each taught to their antediluvian pupils.
To the list of fathers quoted by Mr Maitland may be added Tatian the Syrian2. Justin Martyr3 tells us that these angels taught the women astrology. And Clement of Alexandria tells us that they revealed to these women many truths which it was the Divine intention to have concealed, until the advent of our Lord, and this was one of the sources whence the Greek philosophy derived its truths.
Tertullian also founds St Paul's injunction (1 Cor. xi. 10) on the needless exposure of the woman to her guardian angel.
We can hardly conceive,' says Mr Osborne'', of a fiction so palpable as this, which will not bear the test of the slightest examination. It is contradicted at the outset by our Lord's declaration, that the angels are incapable of such affections, and supposing this to be overpast, we are again met by the intolerable absurdity of a class of beings so constituted and yet created of one sex only I' This last-mentioned premiss however of Mr Osborne is open to question.
Perhaps Mr Maitland's authorities will not better bear his own tests of where,' when," how,' and why,' than those to whom he so unsparingly applies them.
Mr Maitland argues from the Septuagint rendering of the
word t't7n in ver. 4, yiyarres, ' giants', that the authors of it thought that the sons of God were angels, for the giants were the fruit of their connexion with the daughters of men, and the
1 De Virgin. Vel. c. 9; de Idololatria, c. 4 ; de Cultu Fceminarum, Lib. I. c. 2, Lib. II. c. 4,10 ; de Idololatria, c. 9 ; Apol. c. 22, 35 ; de Spectaculis, c. 2.
2 Contra Grcecos, 147, A.	3 Apol. 1. p. 61, A. 4 Doctrinal Errors of the Apostolical Fathers, p. 48, ch. v.
CII. 'VI.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	147
heathen mythology of those days considered the yiyavress as a mixed race of an origin partly celestial and partly terrestrial. But this is not a necessary consequence, and it might have been a mere accidental coincidence. At any rate it cannot shew more than that such was the interpretation of the authors of that version. The heathen mythology might have arisen from a perverted view of Scripture, as perversions of Scripture generally gave rise to idolatry. Mr Maitland also thinks that this crime of the angels in going after strange flesh' was alluded to in Jude 4-12, and in that parallel passage of 2 Pet. ii. 1-14. He considers that the Apostle meant to say that the sin of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha, and of the Israelites, resembled that of the angels before the flood in going after strange flesh,' and therefore that this doom of the angels, of the antediluvian race, and of the Israelites, is held out as a warning to all who will in future resemble them. But Glassius considers that the Apostle in speaking of the Israelites (in his Philologia Sacra) and of Sodom and Gomorrha, only meant to refer to their spiritual fornication. It is a striking fact, however, that in the 5th, 6th, and 7th verses of this very chapter the sin of these angels (if angels they were) is not once alluded to, but only the sin of men, and the punishment of men. That passage also in the book of Job, which alludes to the antediluvian apostasy (xxii. 15, 16, 17), does not once hint that they were otherwise than men, and its language is inconsistent with the idea of a set of novel hybrids. In addition to all this the existence of a new race of giants after the flood (which was the grave of the old ones) without any repetition of the angelic intermarriage, would seem rather to militate against Mr Maitland's theory—not to mention our Lord's assertion, that the angels of heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage.' This notion, however ancient, seems on the whole more fitted for a poem like that of Moore, than for a sober commentary on Scripture. It must not be overlooked, however, that the Coptic and Persic, as well as the Alexandrian versions, render the words sons of God' by 'angels of God.' Those who maintain the existence of the different species of mankind, imagine these sons of God' to have been another race of mankind not descended from Adam ; forgetting that Adam was himself called the son of God' (Luke iii. 38).
Aben Ezra thought that the sons of God' meant the de-
10
148	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. VI
scendants of Seth, who was said to have been begot in Adam's own likeness, Adam having been created in the image of God, whereas the sons and daughters of men were the offspring of Cain, who were an inferior race.
Ver. 3. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh : yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Two objections have been urged here to this striving of God, one to His sincerity in striving with the world before the flood if he foresaw their ultimate obstinacy,—the other to His wisdom if He did not foresee it. With regard to this fact it may be said, that the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God' (1 Cor. ii. 11). In the following similar instances (Exod. xi. 41; iv. &c. ; Gen. xv. 3 ; Ezek. iii. 4 ; Acts iv. 28) God foreknew the ultimate result, and yet tried to dissuade men from it. Therefore the fact of his doing so affords no argument against the Divine Prescience ; and indeed known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world.' Hence the question is merely either as to His wisdom or else His sincerity, in having recourse to strivings in such cases. In reply to the question raised concerning God's wisdom, it may be alleged that there were other greater ends in the present case to be brought about on the whole than man's advantage, e. g. to preserve the dignity of the Divine government of the universe ; and so, while God predetermined that this should be maintained by his punishment of the antediluvians, Ife also strove with them in order that in the meantime they, if disobedient, should be left without excuse. And this end His wisdom was more concerned in attaining than the mere saving of the wicked. With regard to the question concerning the Divine sincerity, it may be replied that God's strivings with men do always attain the end of saving some, although they prove ineffectual with many. And supposing it foreknown that the world would consist of two kinds of men, the obedient and the disobedient, it would not be necessary that these two kinds of men should be dealt with separately and differently, for this might not be agreeable to the Divine government on the whole, but better that God's edicts should be directed equally to all, all being equally concerned in them.
A third objection has been raised to God's goodness in making these strivings effectual to some but ineffectual with
CH. 'VI.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	149
others. To this St Paul's question applies : Shall the clay say to the potter, Why hast thou formed me thus ?' Moreover, the whole question of the origin of evil comes in here, which has been so ably discussed by Dr Clarke, Archbishop King, and others. It is a right of sovereignty to be good to some especially, while it is just to all. Now this is just the state of the case with regard to rebellious man. In the strivings of His Spirit God makes use of means, e. g. the conscience, the affections, the reason—to influence the volition, and this he does equally with all. Only in some men the reason, conscience, and affections are deadened and sealed up by their own conduct. This is the course of God's moral government in general ; and why should He alter this course for the sake of the disobedient any more in the moral than in the natural world ?
The truth is,' says Ho wel, that God doth really and corn-placentially will (and therefore doth with most unexceptionable sincerity declare himself to will) that to be done and enjoyed by many men, which he doth not universally will to make them do or irresistibly procure that they shall enjoy. Which is no harder, than that the impure will of degenerate sinful man is opposite to the holy will of God ; and the malignity of man's will to the benignity of His. No harder than that there is sin and misery in the world, which how can we conceive otherwise, than as a repugnancy to the good and acceptable will of God ?'
The only alternatives of this course would be, either the forbearing from all overtures to men ink common, or else the making effectual overtures to all, both of which courses would have been exceedingly inconvenient ; for the first would have been inconsistent with the holiness and goodness of His nature ; the second, inconsistent with His wisdom, which had so ordered the course of nature that all things should operate by means of secondary causes, and not be under the restrictions of spirit contrary to ordinary means and the operation of the laws of nature, and with man's probationary state; and yet again we cannot suppose that the governor of the universe would tie himself down to ordinary rules, so as to prevent himself from meeting extraordinary emergencies in a different manner, and from constituting exceptional cases when he chose.
1 On the Reconcileableness of God's Prescience.
150	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[Cll. VI.
But to return more especially to the words of this verse. One interpretation of it (against which these objections, futile as they would appear in general, do not lie at all) is this : My spirit shall not always be sheathed in man.' This is the interpretation of no less a critic than Aben Ezra.
Some interpret the latter part of the verse differently. My spirit prevails not always in man, in the phrenzy of lust, he also is flesh.' These render r1V, to err,' in the same sense that it is used in Proverbs v. 19, 20, to express sexual joys ;' and others, My spirit shall not judge in man,' deriving
from rif. (Vide Lindenthal and Raphall and de Sola, in loco).
Therefore his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Some refer this to the time allotted to man for repentance, before the flood ; others to the time allotted to man for life, henceforth. The former opinion seems, on the whole, to be most probable. From this it would appear that God (after the death of Enoch) revealed his purpose probably to Noah of drowning the world, 120 years before the flood happened.
Ver. 4. There were giants in the earth in those days ; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
The Alexandrine version of the LXX. and the version of Tyndal and of the bishop's bible thus render it : The children of God had lain with the daughters of men, and had begotten them children,' perhaps begotten themselves' would have been better, as avoiding the confusion of subject and predicate. Vide Horsley on Hosea, Preface, p. 33, 4to edition.
There have been an immense variety of interpretations of
this text. Some translators have derived the word 1:47M from
17W, ' to fall,' and consider it as meaning men who fell off from the faith, in fact, backsliders (for the word by which they render it—apostates—conveys rather a different idea). Luther translates it Tyrants.' Others translate it men of note,' deriving
it from ilt7b. Others again, gigantic,' deriving it from
.. •
magnus,' which means, says Gesenius, more properly 'excellens: Dr Lee considers it synonymous with 1:1111), giants,' He
derives it from	liberal giving,' whence	abundantia,
CH. 'VI.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	151
acquisita, prmdal.' In the Chaldee we have i1t7b)' Orion, or
T .•
the celestial giant.' The Septuagint renders it ryiyarres., and
the Vulgate gigantes.' It is a curious fact that all the versions
in Walton's Polyglott express this word by one which he renders
gigantes.' The Targum Onkelos by tr;.1, which appears to
come from the root	mighty.'
These t'C7n are mentioned in Numbers xiii. 33. It does not seem totally impossible that the word being derived from magnus,' or lexcellens,' might refer to their length of life
at that period. However, it could not then be put for the same thing in Numbers xiii. 33. In Ecclesiasticus xvi. 7, we read that
God	was not pacified to the old giants, who fell away in the
strength of their wickedness.' We read, after the flood, of a new race of giants, who were all, as far as we can ascertain their origin, descendants of Hani, and none of them, it is curious to observe, apparently in the line of Shen'. Thus we read of the Rephaims, or giants of Ashteroth—the Emims or the Rephaims, however, are often put for the dead, Job xxvi. 5 ; Prov. ii. 18 ; iv. 19 ; xxi. H. The Emims or giants of Moab—the Anakims or giants of Hebron (Josh. xi. 21 ; Num. xiii. 33 ; Deut. ix. 2), and of Og, the King of Bashan, who was one. These were generally men famous for their crimes as well as their stature. Joshua destroyed the Anakims as a race ; but left some of them in Azza, Ashdod, and Gath. Of these Goliah of Gath, who fought with David, was one. That they existed as a peculiar race after the flood, as well as before it, would thus appear. Now they only exist as anomalies in the history of the human species. Le Clerc in his notes on Grotius, De Veritate Christiana Religionis, quotes Josephus, Gabrinus, and Phlegon, Trallianus2 to shew that remains of ancient giants have been found from time to time. These (if human remains at all) must have been post-diluvian. But it is just possible that the ancient historians, not well versed in comparative anatomy, might have mistaken fossil bones of enormous quadrupeds (e. g. mammoth, megatherium, dinotherium, &c.) for human remains. The only so-called gigantic race now existing are said to be the Patagonians of
I Vide Lee on Job xv. 25, p. 302. Edit. 1837. 2 Notes on Grotius, Lib. I. cap. 16.
152	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. VI.
America, who are noted also for personal deformity. They are from seven to eight feet high. Humboldt tells us, their bodies are disproportionate to their legs ; therefore on horseback they seem to be immense giants.' But Dr Pickering says, the stature of these people is nothing unusual, but it is exaggerated by their peculiar mode of dress' (Physical History of Man, p. 5. Bohn's edition).
Some have supposed that the frame of man was invariably at first gigantic, and that like his age, it has decreased ; but there is no evidence of this at all ; and in fact we learn from Egyptian mummies, from Roman urns, rings, measures, and edifices, from recent discoveries of antiquities in Nineveh, and in Mexico, and elsewhere, that the human stature has been the same at different points of a period of 2000 years and upwards. Grotius quotes Pausanias, Philostratus, Pliny, Solinus, Homer, Hesiod, Plato, Ovid, Lucan, and Seneca about the ancient giants, in cap. 16 of Book it. De Veritate, &c. notes. Vide Milton, Book in. line 463, &c. and Book xi. line 668, &c. Paradise Lost.
Ver. 5. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
As a proof of the wicked state of the antediluvian world above the postdiluvian, we may notice the expression here used, every imagination of the thoughts of his heart,' whereas in Genesis viii. 21, it is merely for the imagination of man's heart is only evil from his youth.'
In ch. 22, sect. 5, bk. 6, of the prophecy of Enoch we read (in vv. 6, 7, 8) Then I enquired of Raphael, an angel who was with me, and said, Whose spirit is that, the voice of which reaches to heaven and accuses ? He answered, saying, This is the spirit of Abel who was slain by Cain his brother ; and who will accuse that brother until his seed be destroyed from the face of the earth. Until his seed perish from the seed of the human race.' It there assigns as the principal cause of the flood the death of Abel. Chapters lxx. to xc. of this extraordinary book relate to the deluge and the cause of its happening.
Ver. 6. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Here is the first and a very strong instance of an anthropo-
CII. vi.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	153
pathic expression. It of course does not attribute human passions to God, as we read that He is incapable of them (1 Sam. xv. 29 ; James i. 17), but merely a mode of action which, in human beings, would imply a change of purpose. A similar representation is afforded in Exodus xxxii. 9-14.
This style of representing the Deity was infinitely more graphic to the persons for whom it was intended than would have been a cold abstract philosophical style of conveying these changes in the Divine mode of acting, which last would not have been understood at all, probably by the first readers of Scripture, and by many even now in the present day.
Ver. 7. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth ; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air ; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Here we see the beasts, and reptiles, and fowls involved in the curse on man, because they were created for man's use.
In the Hebrew it is, from man to beast.'
The word ' repentance,' seems to be used in a similar manner in Hebrews xii. 17, and Romans xi. 29.
Ver. 8. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Noah means rest. It is the word used in Psalm cxvi. 7, 'Return unto thy rest (Noah) 0 my soul.' Mr Faber thinks Noah is identical with the last of the seven primaeval Menus of the Hindoos, who constructs a large ship and performs in it the earliest recorded voyage on the waters of an universal deluge. He was called Sydyk, or the just man.'
In the genealogy of Sanconiatho he appears under the names of Agrue, or Ilus, and Dagon. Mr Faber considers the Prometheus of lEschylus to be Adam, the universal father of mankind, reappearing (according as the ancient hierophants pretended) as Noah the second father of the human race—Jupiter Ammon to be Ham—Oceanus quitting its natural domain to assist Prometheus bound on Mount Ararat of the Caucasus, to be the flood—Io to represent the ark. He thinks that the second transmigration of Prometheus, represented the life-giving seed of the woman'.
Ver. 11. This verse shews that the antediluvians were giants at any rate in evil if not in stature. It agrees with what
1 Faber's Three Dispensations, Book r. ch. vi. Vol. I.
154	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. VI.
Eliphaz says (in Job xx. 15, 16, 17). The last verse of which (v. 17) seems to imply a distinct separation between the righteous and the wicked at that time.
Ver. 13.	With the earth,' literally, as in the margin,
from the earth.' TIN, is translated with,' in Gen. xxxvii. 2.
This rendering opposes the argument founded by Fairholmel on v. 13. See more on this subject in note on ch. ix. v. 11.
Ver. 14. Gopher wood. Raphall and Lindenthal and de Sola tell us that Onkelos renders it 1:1111), meaning perhaps the
cedar tree. The general opinion is that it was Cyprus, from its hardness and durability. It was employed by the Egyptians for mummy coffins.
Pliny, Plato, Martial, Thucydides, Theophrastus, Vitruvius, Plutarch, all speak of its durability and suitableness for ship building. Bedford (in his Scripture Chronology) remarks that a wood of extraordinary durability was required for the ark on account of its being 120 years in building, exposed all the time to the weather and the attacks of insects. (Vide Edwards' Notes on Bible).
1.t.1, is nearly the same as Kj7rap, the radix of rarirdpeo-cros,
pitch.'	pitch, or bitumen,' literally a covering.' If we
are to believe the testimony of the book of Enoch (ch. xiii. p. 154) the art of navigation was commonly practised before the flood. This verse implies a certain amount of knowledge of mensuration and mechanics, and some kind of knowledge of the application of resinous matter to wood, in order to enable Noah even to carry out those orders of the Divine Being.
Ver. 17. (7=M, the flood.' (Plural does not occur). The following derivations of this word have been asigned.
t711, rain ;' 971, to confound ;' L7t, to flow ;'	de-
struction.'
This word is used in Psalm xxix. 10, where Gesenius translates it De Cccli Oceano,' on which Dr Lee remarks, Who ever heard of an ocean of heaven among the Hebrews ?' The intention of the passage obviously is, Jehovah sat as a king on the flood,' (i. e.) ruled even when that catastrophe took place.
Flood of waters. God has made all the elements in turn to
1 Geology of Scripture, p. 136, ch. vi. Edit. 1833.
CII. VI.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	155
carry out the purposes of his moral government, e. g. the earth, (Num. xvi. 32) ; the air, (Exod. ix. 23-25 ; 1 Sam. xii. 16, 18) ; fire, (Dan. iii. 27) ; water, (Joshua iii. 15, 16 ; 2 Kings ii. 8, 14 ; Exodus xiv. 21, 22).
Ver. 18. But with thee will I establish my covenant.
This was probably an allusion to the first great prophecy made to Eve of a Redeemer, to which all subsequent smaller covenants were subservient, and which they tended to promote. God's word, therefore, amounted to this, As yet the impending flood is not let loose, but when thou hast built the ark according to my covenant, the windows of heaven shall be opened, and the fountains of the great deep unsealed by me : I will destroy the world, man and beast with a flood, but with thee will I establish my promise of a Redeemer, making thee the connecting link between Adam and Jesus Christ.'
Ver. 19. From this it follows that no genus at least (if not no species) was lost in the flood. Therefore those fossil land animals of extinct species which we discover in the strata, must have existed anterior to the Adamic economy ; and therefore the strata which contain them must have done so likewise.
Ver. 20. God has often made the beasts subservient to man's purposes. At creation they come to Adam to exercise his powers of language—here they come to Noah to be inclosed in the ark. Afterwards voracious birds fed Elijah (1 Kings xvii. 6). Hungry beasts shut their mouths, and denied their propensities when with Daniel (Dan. vi. 22). Insects have oppressed a cruel nation at God's command, to free his people (Exod. viii. 17, 24).
This was as much a miracle as any of the foregoing, when the animals all came to Noah, two of every sort for preservation.
It does not seem likely that this included animal food, for animal food would not keep well in the ark, without indeed a fresh miracle, nor is it implied that more than two animals of a kind were in the ark, therefore it was probably farinaceous or vegetable food. If so, this would agree with the notion that the carnivorous animals were originally created herbivorous, and were in fact omnivorous.
156	NOTES ON GENESIS,	[CH. VII.
CHAPTER VII.
IT would not prove uninteresting to compare Genesis the 7th, 8th, and 9th chapters with Ovid, Metamorphoses, Bk. 1,—the one containing the account of Noah's preservation from the deluge, the other that of Deucalion. Compare also Paradise Lost, Bk. xi. line 925, &c. Justin Martyr (in his Apology, ir. p. 45, c.) makes Deucalion the same as Noah.
Ver. 1. Thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. This was the righteousness which is by faith (vide Heb. xi. 7). Noah appears to have had a twofold work assigned to him by God, which he fulfilled steadily ; in the first place, building in obedience to God's command (Gen. vi. 14) : in the second place, preaching to the people, to convert them from the error of their ways (1 Peter iii. 19, 20). And as he preached, we can fancy that he would point to the gradual accomplishment of the first part of his duty, as an earnest of the coming calamity, but in vain ; for this probably only excited their derision.
Ver. 2. Of every CLEAN beast. This distinction of clean and unclean must either have been proleptical, or else, what is more likely, must have had reference to sacrifice, according to what we read in the 8th chapter and 20th verse And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord ; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.' If so, this verse constitutes an antediluvian order to Noah to sacrifice ; and, moreover, it speaks of the distinction made with a view to this, as if it were a thing well known to Noah.
By sevens, the male and his female, i. e. seven male and seven female ; literally, seven, seven, male and female.' Dr Gramberg, who makes a distinction between what he calls the Elohist and the Jehovist, as different persons, who, according to him, wrote the different chapters, in which these words occur, gives, as one peculiar phrase of the Elohist, the expression male and female.' And yet, at the same time, he very inconsistently attributes this passage to the Jehovist. However, the Samari-
tan text of ver. 1 is In+N It '1, and Elohim said.'
Ver. 4. For yet other seven days. One Rabbinical reason
assigned for this is, that these were the seven days of mourning
CH. VII.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	. 157
for Methuselah, which were additional to the 120 years, promised in chap. vi. 3. Some think that this is a trace of the division of time into weeks, from the earliest period, by God himself. Ken-nicott considers that it is a vestige of the antediluvian observance of the Sabbath ; that the command was given to Noah on the Sabbath, and that consequently the deluge began on the succeeding Sabbath, which was kept by Noah in the ark. This argument was used by Hospinian, de Festis, c. 3. Justin Martyr 1, however, and Irenazus2 both make Noah one of those who, without circumcision and the Sabbath, were very pleasing unto God, and also justified without them. Tertullian3 and Epiphanius4 tell us the same. Eusebius5 says that Noah knew not anything that pertained to the Jewish ceremony, neither in circumcision nor any other thing ordained by Moses (among which other things he places the Sabbaths).
Ver. 7. The reason why God preserved one family at the deluge (in preference to destroying all the world, and then creating man afresh, which he could easily have done) we may suppose to have been to impress all future men, through them, with the event itself as an instance of punishment of the wicked, and reward of the righteous, as well as to preserve traditions on the point of man's creation, his fall, and the promise of his recovery ; besides ensuring in this manner the fulfilment of the promise itself concerning the seed of Eve.
Ver. 11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
It is a curious fact, that the word used here is t:11111, and not
the sea,' which last word occurs in Gen. i. 10, and nowhere
in the history of the deluge ; the deep' occurs in Gen. i. 2. Moses here divides the causes of the deluge into two, subterranean and celestial ; so does St Peter (2 Epist. iii. 6) divide them into the constitution of the heavens, and the constitution of the earth. Gresswell, in his Harmony of the Gospels (Chronological Table,
1 Dial. ewm Tryphone.	2 Adv. Hceres. Lib. iv. c. xxx.
3 Adv. Judceos.	4 Adv. Hceres. Lib. I. c. v.
6 De Demonstrat. Lib. T. c. 6.
6 Vide Heylyn's History of the Sabbath, Part 1. ch. 2.
158	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[Cu. VII.
p. 341, Edition 1830, Vol. in.) gives this date as in the Spring, 2348 B.C. Some assign it to November in that year.
Burnet' tells us that the earth was of the form of an egg ; and in this he apparently agrees with the ancient Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, and others (of whatever value their testimony in such a matter may be). He thought that an immense mass of water lay concealed in the womb of the earth, under the solid crust of it, and that when the fountains of the great deep were' said to be broken up,' the Scripture referred to the opening up of their mighty cavity, and the falling in of the earth. He refers to St Peter, who, according to him, imputes the deluge to this peculiar constitution of the earth (which appears to be a
petitio principii,' on the part of Dr Burnet). He argues that the expression the fountains of the great deep ' implies something more than is generally understood by it (which is very possible, although it does not necessarily follow from this that his theory is correct, especially as this expression might be used to describe some volcanic or other agency, heaving up the ocean bottom). He considers that without this abyss there would not be sufficient water to effect it ; but on the supposition of Cuvier and others, that the same cataclysm had laid dry the bed of the
present ocean, this argument would sink to the ground.	There
would perhaps be no improbability,' says Bishop Shuttleworth,
in the supposition which makes 6 miles the mean depth of the ocean.' (Consistency of Revelation, &c. p. 79, ch. 8.) If this be so, there would be no want of water. A sounding also has just been made by Captain H. M. Denham, of H.M.S. Herald, of 81 miles in the South Atlantic ocean, which would seem to imply that the mean depth was greater than 6 miles, as we have no reason for supposing that this sounding of Captain Denham was much above the average. He makes out the manner of increase, and subsequent decrease of the waters, as related by Moses, to accord exactly with his theory (although it would be equally consistent with the generality of theories of the flood). He translates Psalm xxxiii. 7, He gathereth the waters of the sea as in a bay' (' as in a heap,' Eng. transl.). He layeth up the abysses in storehouses. He tells us that Symmachus, Jerome, and Basil so render it. And he considered the verse, so trans-
1 Theory of the Earth, Vol. I. ch. vi. and vii.
CH. VII.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	159
lated, as proving his exposition of the deluge. He refers also to Job xxxviii. 8, 9, 10 ; Proverbs xxiii. 28 ; Psalm civ. 8, 9 ; xxiv. 2 ; cxxvi. 6, as supporting his particular view (though his conclusions here seem by no means necessary ones ; and though, if they were, an opponent could afford to allow them, since other places in the same books speak of the earth as a plain supported on pillars, these books not being intended as scientific manuals for those to whom they are addressed). This work is very ingenious and plausible, and was thought much of in the last century, an ode full of praise being addressed to the author by Addison, although it is not now at all highly estimated, the march of science having quite left its statements behind.
Ver. 12. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
The igneous vapour proceeding from the volcanic irruptions, supposed by some to cause the deluge, would account for this phenomenon.
The words ' and forty nights' are not given in ver. 17, where this is repeated ; but although lost in the Hebrew copies, they exist in the Septuagint version, and also in many MSS. of the Latin vulgate version. ' They ought, therefore, to be restored,' says Horne, to the text of ver. 17.
Ver. 13, &c. In the selfsame day.
It would require another miracle to enable all the animals to enter into the ark on one day, as we read in this verse. ' As to all the questions,' says Professor Stuart (Chrestomathy, p. 161, Pt. in.) ' which can be raised relative to the form of the ark, the possibility of immuring in it all the various kinds of animals, which water would destroy, and of supporting them there for so long a time ; it is plain that they must be matters of speculation merely: In regard to the beasts going into the ark, it is evident that the whole occurrence is regarded by our author as a miraculous one ; and admitting the truth of this, there is an adequate reason or cause for all the occurrences which took lace.
Ver. 15. Michaelis remarks, that the expression ( . ) all
is sometimes used for many. This mode of speech was common in the East, e. g. Gen. xli. 57 ; Exodus ix. 25 ; x. 5 ; Acts ii. 5 ; 1 Kings x. 24 ; Acts x. 12 ; Matt. iv. 8.
The different species that inhabit the earth and sea are said
160	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CIL VII.
by Professor Hitchcock to be half a million (mammalia 1000, birds 6000, reptiles 2000, insects 120,000) ; according to Dr Pye Smith—mammalia 1000, birds 6000, reptiles and amphibious animals 1500, &c.
The literal interpretation here would involve a whole series of miracles. First, all these animals could only be brought away from their different centres of creation to which their constitution was adapted by a miraculous interference with the ordinary laws of their being. Secondly, they could not, being all brought together, enter into the ark, or a building of three times its size, under ordinary circumstances. Thirdly, they could not, having once entered, live so many weeks together peaceably without a greater miracle than that which occurred with regard to the lions in the den with Daniel.
Ver. 19. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth. Heb. and Gr. vehemently vehemently.' So Gen. xix. 2 ; xxx. 43, &c.
It is the opinion of some scientific men that the cataclysm might have been caused by the attraction of a comet, or large heavenly body of any kind, which, approaching sufficiently near the earth, would raise the waters of it over the highest mountains, in the same way that the attraction of the Sun and Moon affects the tides.
And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
It has been said, that we see proofs of a great deluge (subsequent to the formation of the strata) in those valleys which occur between mountains, the several strata of which precisely answer to each other—in those insulated masses of boulder stones, all of which have pursued a given direction from north to south 1, which
are so common on our	the diluvial deposits of the many
1 Vide Sausseur, Voyage dans les Alpes, and Geological Transactions, Vols. I. and III., &c.
2 Geologists however seem now to agree in assigning different periods to the different masses of sand, gravel, and boulders. This subject may be seen well brought forward by Dr Pye Smith in his Geology of Scripture, p. 113, Lect. 5. Whether the theory of glaciers referred to by him (p. 400, Note H.) is sufficient to account for them all, may perhaps be reasonably doubted.
cm VII.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	161
caves described by Dean Buckland'—in the water marks on the rocks, preserving as they do in many parts a given direction. It has been said, that we see proofs of the suddenness and extent of this calamity in the elephants and other animals properly belonging to more sultry climes found immersed in ice in the polar regions. It has been urged, moreover, that we see proofs that this deluge occurred not more than 4000 years ago, in the calculations of Dolomieu and De Luc, founded upon the mass of Delta accumulated at the mouths of rivers—in the allotted time given to the formation and progress of shifting sand-hills upon flat low coasts, by M. Bumontier—in the computed age of glaciers, founded upon close observation of their present gradual progress2 —in the depth of peat mosses or turbaries which have formed
on the hills and the valleys since the retreat of the ocean.	It
may be seen,' says Baron Cuvier, that nature everywhere informs us distinctly that the commencement of the present order of things cannot be dated at a very remote period ; and it is very remarkable, that mankind everywhere speak the same language with nature, whether we consult their natural traditions on this subject, or consider their moral and political state, and the intellectual attainments which they had made at the time when they began to have authentic historical monuments.'
Whether Baron Cuvier would have written this passage now, had he lived so long, is a point which we cannot accurately determine. He might possibly have subsided into the opinion of Professor Sedgwick, who says (Geol. Transac. Vol. 1. pp. 314, 1831),
Though we have not yet found the certain traces of any great diluvian catastrophe which we can affirm to be within the human period, we have at least shewn that paroxysms of internal energy, accompanied by the elevation of mountain-chains, and followed by mighty waves, desolating whole regions of the earth, were a part of the mechanism of nature. And what has hap-
1 Reliquice Diluviance, passim. In quoting, however, Dean Buckland's Reliquice Diluviance,. it is only fair to state that Dean Buckland in his Bridgewater Treatise has recanted his former opinion, that all of these were the results of the Noachian deluge. Indeed it is generally thought by some of the most eminent geologists of the present day, that geology as yet affords no satisfactory evidence of the universality of Noah's deluge, and that diluvial deposits cannot all be attributed to one period of formation.
2 Cuvier, Theory of the Earth, § 31. Edit. 1822. Jameson, p. 148.
11
162	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CIL VII.
pened again and again, from the most ancient up to the most modern periods, may have happened once during the five thousand years that man has been living on the surface.'
Cuvier also tells us that Berosus, who wrote at Babylon in the time of Alexander, mentions the flood as having happened before the time of Belus the son of Ninus. He affirms that the abyss was shewn in Syria, in the temple of Hierapolis, through which they say that its waters ran off—that the ancient Parsees speak of a deluge which happened before the reign of their first king —that the Chou ICing, a Chinese work of immense antiquity, places the event of the deluge in the reign of Yao, who is supposed to have lived about 3930 years ago. He refers also to the accounts in the 'Endo° Mythology (Theory of the Earth). Humboldt (see his Travels) thought that the Mexican hieroglyphics contained traces of the deluge. Fairholme (Geology of Scripture, pp. 131, 132, &c. ch. 6.) quotes the traditions of the deluge that were found among the inhabitants of Otaheite, of Cuba, of Peru, of Brazil, and Mexico, and among the Iroquois Indians. Sir W. Jones ( Works, VOL In. p. 322, &c.) gives a very curious account of it from the first Purana of the Hindus. To all the above testimonies from heathen nations, Sharon Turner (Vol. II. Letters, 16 and 17) adds that of Abydenus in his Median and Assyrian History—of Diodorus Siculus about the Egyptians—of Lucian—of Plato, who represented it as a common belief in Greece—of the Arundel marbles—of Pausanias, as representing the belief of the Athenians—of Pindar, in his Olympic Odes—of Pliny, Mela, and Solinus—of Hieronymus the Egyptian, in his Phoenician Annals—of the orthodox Magi among the ancient Persians, as quoted by Hyde—of the Chinese Taosee school—of Kong-in-ta—of Tschache—of Mongtsee—of the Sanskrit Maharabat—of the Puranas—of the Koran of Ma-homet—of the Magagines of Darbia in Africa—of the ancient inhabitants of Chili—of the Cholulans who preceded the Mexicans in New Spain—of the Indians of Chiapa—of the Mexicans and Mechoacans, of the Peruvians and Brazilians—of the tribes of the Upper Oroonoko—of the Cubans, of the Kamschatkans—of the Iroquois and the Arrawak Indians—of the Californians—of the Koliouges—of the Chippewyans—of the Cree Indians—of the Red River Indians—of the New Caledonians—of the South Sea Islanders—the 0 taheiteans—the Eimeans and the Raiaiteans, and the inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands. Thus have all
CII. VII.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	163
nations, and peoples, and sections of peoples, in all parts of the world, and throughout all time, preserved traditions of this event. And what is still more remarkable, the traditions are stronger, the further we go back, especially in those countries which were supposed to be nearest to Ararat. They, however, all point to one locality, or at least very few of them to their own country ; and these few may be easily accounted for in many ways. What would be more natural, for instance, that they should each, in preserving the memory of the event, transfer it to their own country, in course of time, from some common centre ? Thus these traditions, although they afford the strongest presumptive evidence corroboratory of Scripture that a deluge once took place, within the memory of man, yet they fail to affect much the question of its universality. The interpreters of this chapter are of two kinds : those who maintain the universality of the deluge, and who understand the words here used in their literal meaning ; and those who accept them in a figurative sense. Those who accept the narrative and the words, all the high hills that were under the whole heaven,' in their literal meaning, very justly ask the following questions : If the deluge were not universal, where was the necessity of the ark at all, in order to save Noah ? Could not Noah have been simply ordered to migrate with his family, as Lot was ordered to leave Sodom previous to its destruction by fire ? or where was the use of selecting pairs of animals, and preserving them miraculously in the ark ? or how could the tops of the highest mountains in any particular district be covered, and yet the waters not extend themselves over the whole earth—unless indeed the attraction of some comet could effect this in one part only ? I do not find that these very reasonable questions have been as yet answered by the advocates of the figurative interpretation. Amongst those, on the other hand, who maintained that the flood was partial was Le Clerc, who thought that it only overflowed the regions between the Euxine, Mediterranean, Persian, and Caspian seas ; and Stillingfleet, who thought that it only overflowed the continent of Asia, that being the only part then inhabited ; also Dathe 1 and Matthew Poole2 considered it to have been partial.
1 Dathe, Comment. on the Pentateuch.
2 Synopsis on Gen. vii. 19.
11-2
164	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. VII.
Against the universality of the deluge is pleaded the evidence of dicotyledonous trees growing in Senegal and other parts of Africa, and in Mexico and other parts of America, some of which are calculated by the most eminent botanists of the day to have existed 5000 or 6000 years, from the number of annual rings on their exogenous stems. These seem certainly to militate against the universality of the deluge, since it appears impossible that they should have lived under water during the whole time of the deluge according to the scriptural account. But this branch of physiological botany appears to be as yet in its babyhood. Perhaps therefore more knowledge on this subject may reconcile the discrepancy. It does not seem utterly impossible that the number of seasons producing the zones in the stems of the trees may ultimately be found, in the tropics, not to have exactly corresponded with the number of years assigned, nor perhaps even with more than half the number. in favour of the universality of the flood, Mr Horne insists upon the paucity of mankind in the first ages, and the late invention and progress of arts and sciences, as well as the traditions of it among all nations. (Vide Introduction, &c. Vol. 1. pp. 150-156. Ch. iii. sec. 2. § 1.).
Ver. 21 and 22. 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 : all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
What a fearful picture here presents itself to our view ! On one side a confused mass of terrified brutes driven together by the force of the tempest, and cowering at the approach of the angry waters. The lion and the lamb, the leopard and the kid, lying down actually together, and each too much occupied with terror to think of its companion. Evidence of this fact (so far as evidence of such a case is now possible) may perhaps be gathered from the numerous bones of all kind of land animals found in the diluvial deposits in the different caves. On another side, men, women, and children repenting when it was too late, and making ineffectual attempts to reach the hitherto despised ark, but in vain.
As the mountains were gradually becoming covered by the rising waters, what a scene of desolation, misery, and protracted agony must have arisen ! Husbands striving to save
CH. VII.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	165
their wives perchance, mothers fainting under the weight of their children, and convulsively grasping them in the face of despair, whilst each idol of their heart's affections is rudely swept in turn from their grasp by the remorseless waters, they all the while clinging to them with all the tenacity of maternal affection. Men, women, and children daily climbing higher up the mountains to escape the devouring element which followed close upon their heels, wave succeeding wave like hungry wolves after their prey. While youth, strength, and agility, all God's gifts most prized before, now only serve to protract their inevitable fate, and by involving them in a long and painful suspense, to enhance their woe—haunted perhaps at each step by the floating carcasses of their deceased friends, whose lips the late smile of derision has hardly left. At last even these disappear, and the ark is left alone, triumphant over a world of waters.
Ver. 24. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Cuvier tells us from geological observation, that the sea has at one period or other not only covered all our plains, but that it must have remained there for a long time and in a state of tranquillity.'
From the different expressions in ver. 18, And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth ; ver. 19, And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, &c. ; ver. 24, And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days ; the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests that a series of shocks or convulsions may have attended the deluge, being successive, with intervals between them. (Records of Creation, Vol. i. p. 355 note, Appendix I.)
Mr. Fairholme in support of his theory argues as follows : The ground for supposing that all these numerous strata in the coal-districts, ought, like those of the basins of Paris and London, which contain no coal, to be included in diluvial ejects, is that from the number of months during which all things were fully submitted to the laws which act, within the bed of the ocean, these laws had sufficient time to class and arrange the enormous quantity of moveable materials, so abundantly provided by that destructive event'.' But these coal-fields are placed by all present
1 Geology of Scripture, pp. 229, 230, ch. 9.
166	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. VIII.
geologists of any note in the secondary strata, in the pre-ada-mic period. If we suppose,' says Dr Pye Smith, the mass of waters to have been such as would increase the equatorial diameter by some 11 or 12 miles, two new elements would hence accrue to the action of gravity upon our planet. The absolute weight would be greatly increased, and the causes of the nuta-tion of the axis would be varied. I am not competent to the calculation of the changes in the motions of the earth which would thus be produced, and which would propagate their effects through the whole solar system, and indeed to the entire, extent of the material motion ; but they would certainly be very great'.'
CHAPTER VIII.
Ver. 1. And, God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark.
GOD not only remembered Noah, but also every living thing and all the cattle.' How does this illustrate the minuteness of God's providence, which while it guides the planets in their courses, and orders all things in the physical and moral universe for the best, making every thing work together for good to them who love him, yet marks the downfall of every sparrow, with the tenderest care, reaching unto all things, even the most minute and inconsiderable as well as the most important, from the reptile up to the seraph, which takes cognizance, our Saviour tells us, of the birds that fly in the air, the lilies that adorn our fields, and even the very hair on our heads ! We are too apt, when we wish to exalt the comprehensiveness of God's investigation, to depreciate or at any rate to overlook its minuteness. And this error often takes away the individuality of our faith in His providence, as exerted for each of us personally. Such passages as the above serve to remind us of it.
Thus the Psalmist in the 139th Psalm, represents God as an universal presence from which there is no escape ; and a sublime description of the divine omniscience this Psalm affords. How does this verse, And God remembered Noah, and every
1 Geology and Scripture, p. 143. Bohn's Edition.
CIL VIII.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	167
living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark, seem to remind us that every thing which occurs throughout this universe, the most trivial and obscure circumstance as well as the most important, is subject to His mighty supervision and control ! It is His great prerogative to know the secrets of every heart, to penetrate the hidden purposes of every author of good or of evil long ere they were conceived, to perceive every exulting throb of satisfaction that ever gleamed across the human mind. 11e hears distinctly the lonely sigh of the returning penitent, and the awful hollow laugh of the maniac, and the half-suppressed mutter of vengeance by the malefactor which is realized on a future day in murderous deed, and the agonizing death-cry of the expiring profligate, and the softened tone of the dying blasphemer, and the vain lamentation of the houseless wanderer, of whose very being the world around him is scarcely conscious ; even the lisping first prayer of the infant, and the frantic wail of every newly-bereaved widow, and the lonely supplication of the friendless orphan. Not the last ebbing drop of Abel, the first martyr's blood, nor the fretful and envious complaint of the discontented Cain, nor the daring impiety of the avowed infidel Lamech, nor the last sepulchral gurgling of the waters over every drowned creature in that awful flood, though buried perhaps in the tempest's louder roar, escaped his notice. The eyes of the Lord,' says Solomon, are in every place, be-
holding the evil and the good.'	He that planted the ear,'
says the Psalmist, shall he not hear ? and he that formed the eye, shall he not see ? ' It was this all-seeing God, then, who saw that Noah amid a corrupt and wicked world, was righteous before him,' and remembered Noah.'
And God made a wind to pass over the earth. 'An expression,' says Dr Pye Smith, which adequately conveys the idea of a local field of operation ; extensive it might be, but totally inapplicable to the surface of the whole globe.' (Lecture v. p. 142.) Might not this word (Mr) represent the same spirit
who is represented as brooding over the waters at creation ? If so the words would run thus : And Jehovah caused the spirit to pass over the earth,' and Dr Pye Smith's objection would lose its force.
Ver. 2. The fountains of the deep. It is remarkable that the original word for the deep (1*Tri) corresponds, according
168	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. VIII.
to Dr Campbell, (On New Testament, prelim. dissertation 6. part. 2. Vol. 1.) in one of its significations with the New Testament hades,' which are supposed to be situated in the centre of the earth.
Ver. 3. And the waters returned from off the earth continually. Psalm civ. 8, describes the retreat of the tides.
Continually,' literally, going and returning' (t)1 '707;1).
J. F. Schrmder renders it by eundo et redeundo, (i. e.) pedetentim, (peu a peu). Janua Fortis, 4c. in loco.
Similarly, ai	gradually' in Persian. Vide Gulistan,
 
of Sadi, passim, and the Anwari Souheile. Arabic t.")	t's1 §
which Walton renders by quo magis ibat recedebat. Targum Onkelos, (`p,n) r171N) Vulgate. Euntes et redeuntes. Com-
pare	:
Exodus xix. 19, where going is put for increasing.
Ver. 4. Upon the mountains of Ararat. Some think this to be a particular mountain in Armenia, which is alluded to here, which had two heads, and this accounts for the plural here used. The name Ararat, given to it perhaps afterwards, signifies the curse of trembling.' Josephus quotes a passage from Nicolaus Damascenus which seems to make it a mountain of the name of Baris, also in Armenia. The Armenians call it Macis, the Persians Kuhi Nuach the Turks Adagh or Agridagh. Its highest summit is 16,254 feet above the level of the sea. Whether this mountain itself was a volcano or not it is difficult to determine. There are certainly volcanic remains to a vast extent all around it, which must have proceeded from some great eruption either there or not very far from itl.
Ver. 7. There is a curious tradition in the island of Cuba, that an old man knowing that the flood was coming, built a ship and entered with many animals, and that he sent out a crow which did not immediately come back, staying to feed on the carcasses of dead animals, but afterwards returned with a green branch in his beak2. This seems to be a mixture of the two histories of the raven and the dove.
1 Vide Rosenmuller's Biblical Geography, Vol. 1. ch. 4, sec. 7, p. 144147.
2 Fairholme's Geology cf Scripture, ch. 6, p. 132.
CH. VIII.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	169
Abydenus (as quoted by Eusebius') relates the departure and return of the birds, the third time with mud on their claws.
Ver. 10. Kennicott considers this, yet other seven days, which Noah waited, was until the following Sabbath2. He also considers this ' a proof that Noah was in possession of the computation by weeks, which he must have had in a revelation from God, and could not have gathered from nature like the division of time into days, months, or years, which followed from the diurnal and annual revolutions of the earth, and from the monthly revolutions of the moon. Heylin however thinks that Noah observed the quarters of the moon, as affecting the tides, which were seven days each. (History of the Sabbath, Part 1. Ch. ii. p. 39.)
Ver. 11. Hence the olive branch became the sign of peace among many nations ever afterwards.
Ver. 16. It supposed that a year and ten days had been spent in the ark at the time of this command being given.
Ver. 19. Every,	Dr Pritchard, in his Physical His-
tory of Mankind, says, I do not apprehend that we depart from the obvious meaning of this passage by supposing that it refers to the stock of animals peculiar to the region inhabited by man before the deluge, which were perhaps chiefly the domesticated kinds, and the clean or those used for sacrifice in the patriarchal institutions. These races, which would otherwise have perished, were, as it seems to me, preserved with man, and to spread themselves with him in later times over the world. If,' says he, it be necessary to suppose that creatures of all living tribes were collected from different climates into one spot, in order that they might be preserved in the ark of Noah, this could only be done by supernatural agency. If we avoid this last supposition, as improbable on the whole, though by no means impossible, we must have recourse to one of the following hypotheses ; either (1) the flood was partial, and the whole earth which was submerged was only the ryn oucou,uepn, and did not affect those animals living elsewhere ; or else (2) the flood was universal, and a new creation took place posterior to it.'
Ver. 20. Builded an altar. Jewish tradition tells us that
1 Prcep. Ev. p. 414.	2 Diss. 2, p. 172.
170	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[cii. VIII.
this was the same place where Abraham offered up Isaac, and
where Cain and Abel sacrificed before.
Ver. 21. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour.
	Targuml Onkelos	rip-romInn min! inpi. Hebrew :
	1'1'1 r1N rnir	Dr Spencer (de legibus Hebrceorum,
" I	T :	-1-
Lib. in. diss. 2, cap. 3, sec. 2) renders this odorem quietis. Similarly, A ben Ezra.
With this perhaps we may compare the expression which occurs in Ephesians T. 2.: Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour.' Here the same expression is applied to the atonement of Christ.
And the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse any more the earth for man's sake. In other words, God's wrath was appeased. Hence the prayer of Noah and its accompanying sacrifice, Mr Faber2 thinks must have been deprecatory, not eucharistic, nor homologetic, in its primary intention. He also thinks that it was that complex modification of deprecatory sacrifice, which to simple deprecation superadds the idea of an expiatory atonement. It could not have been a simple deprecatory sacrifice, for then it would have been of the nature of a bribe to the Almighty to desist from punishment, therefore it must have been a complex one, partly deprecatory and partly piacular. Mr Davison takes a different view of the case alto-gether3.
The manner in which the word altar is first used here'', without any explanation, some think implies the existence of altars before the deluge. It might be so. But this would only shew that the persons for whom Moses wrote were familiar with the term.
I will not any more destroy the earth for man's sake. This promise has now been verified by the experience of 4201 years; and yet scoffers often turn the unchanging regularity of nature's movements into an argument against the very existence of a Creator !
1 Vide Walton's Polyglott in loco.
2 Vide Faber On Expiatory Sacrifice, pp. 70-83, cb. 4.
3 Lectures on Prophecy, No III. pp. 90, &c.
4 Vol. p. 99, Book T. notes.
CH. VIII.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	171
This promise was particularly opportune at this time when man was just delivered from so fearful a catastrophe, and his fears would consequently be all centered in a recurrence of a similar event. It is appealed to in Isaiah liv. 9, 10.
For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. We should especially compare this with the words used in Gen.
5, as shewing that the corruption of man existed after the flood as well as before it ; although the words are stronger in the sixth chapter, where we are told that every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually.'
Neither will I again smite any more every living thing as I have done. This is more absolute than the clause which preceded it, which was confined in its application by those words for man's sake, thus leaving it open for the Deity to do so, for any other reason. But this is modified again by what follows in the next verse, not as to the actuating motive, but as to the time or duration of the effect. While the earth remaineth.
Ver. 22. While the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease.
This expression, while the earth remaineth, seems to intimate that the earth will not remain always. 2 Pet. iii. 7. The texts which allude to the future destruction of the world appear to be as follows, Psalm cii. 25-27 ; Isaiah xiii. 13 ; xxiv. 18, 19 ; xxxiv. 4 ; li. 6 ; Job ix. 5, 6 ; Haggai ii. 6 ; 1 Cor.
31. And perhaps the following passages all more or less allude to its destruction by fire : Deut. xxxii. 22 ; Psalm 1. 3 ; xcvii. 5 ; Isaiah xxx. 33 ; xxxiv. 8, 10 ; lxvi. 15; Ezekiel xxxviii. 19-22 ; 2 Pet. iii. 5-12 ; Rev. xi. 19 ; xvi. 18 ; 2 Thess.
7, 8. Perhaps also the renovated earth is alluded to in Isaiah lxv. 17 ; lxvi. 22 ; Rev. xxi. 1, 2; 2 Pet. iii. 13 ; Matt. xix. 28 ; Acts iii. 21.
Seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, summer and winter. There are those who hold that the inclination of the ecliptic was altered at the time of the flood, and that since that period it has remained unaltered. This might be done, perhaps, by the introduction of some new source of attraction into the system. If this supposition be correct, it will account for the present regularity of the seasons, and for their difference from the former ones, as apparently indicated by the fossil remains of tropical climates found in the temperate zone.
172	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[c 1. ix.
This charter of the continuaice of the seasons, and of the promised freedom from a deluge forms the tenure subject to which mankind now holds the land, and trusting to which all their operations of art are employed upon it, It is greater than that conferred on Adam and Eve at the creation. Gen. i. 11.
Day and night. This part of the covenant is alluded to in Jeremiah xxxiii. 20.
CHAPTER IX.
THE first verse contains the repetition of the original charter
	 granted to Adam in Gen. i. 28. Jeremy Taylor calls this
God's covenant with the world, as contrasted with his covenant with His Church. Compare James v. 7.
Ver. 2. This verse contains virtually the same grant as Gen. i. 28.
Ver. 3. This is a larger charter than is contained in Gen. i. 29 ; all things were here superadded to the green herb.' We find no mention of the use of animal food before the flood. Those who support the opinion that animal food was granted before, say that this cannot be considered as referring to a grant of any particular species of food, because it cannot even refer to all herbs, including those which were poisonous. But probably the grant of all herbs was made, and man was left to choose between them, as he is now. They assert also that Vt1 only means creeping things,' and does not include beasts and fowl,' which were quoted before. But this word is employed in Gen. vii. 21 to express all animals,' and translated in our version
all flesh.' It is in the Arabic	J.< j, in the
Syriac	\\= 0. In the Targum of Onkelos it is para-
phrased by ';'1 NIrrixtv 11"1-17, and the Lxx. by Val, ipre-rop
o COT	and in the vulgate, Omne quod movetur et vivit.'
Sometimes in Scripture VIVI is the generic term and rt, is the specific one, meaning reptiles.' And if the grant of animal food were not now made, where was the use of the injunction contained in ver. 4 ?
CH. IX.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	173
Heidegger (as quoted by Archbishop Magee On the Atonement, note no. 52.) considers this grant made to Noah as only a repetition of the grant made to Adam, and a further confirmation of it, in consistency with his proposed translation of Gen. i. 29, 30, which is given in page 34. President Edwards' considers that this was a new grant, made on the occasion of Noah's sacrifice being accepted, and therefore founded on the covenant of grace as opposed to the old one, which was founded on the covenant of works, and given to Adam in Paradise.
Ver. 4. The reason for this command is given fully in Leviticus xvii. 10-16. One object of this prohibition was undoubtedly to impress mankind with a high reverence for blood, as a most holy thing consecrated to the purpose of the general expiation for sin, and to put them constantly in mind of that awful fact that without shedding of blood there is no remis-sion2.' Lev. xvii. 11. It is a curious fact, sheaving the relation of this prohibition to the ordinances of sacrifice, that the bleod of fishes, which were never brought to the altar, was allowed to be eaten (Lev. vii. 26 ; xvii. 13). Another object of it was, perhaps, to prevent cruelty to animals, by providing that men should never eat the flesh so long as the blood was in it, that is, so long as it was alive. This was the opinion of Maimonides, and other Jewish doctors. Vide Deut. xii. 23, 24 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 32. There exist some naturalists now amongst us who consider the- principle of life to be inherent in the blood.
Ver. 5. At the hand of every beast will I require it. There is a curious temporal provision to this effect in Exodus xxi. 28, 29. Bishop Butler3 goes so far as to tell us that the brutes may become moral and rational agents, and that we know not what latent powers and capacities they may be endued with ;' that there was once, prior to experience, as great presumption against human creatures, as there is against the brute creatures arriving at that degree of understanding which we have in mature age ; for we can trace up our own existence to the same original with theirs. And we find it to be a general law of nature, that creatures endued with capacities of virtue and
1 Edwards' Hiltory of Redemption, Part 2.
2 Bishop Horsley, Sermon XXII. p. 283, on Mark ii. 27.
3 Analogy of Nature and Revelation, Part 1. ch. 1, sec. 2.
174	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII. IX.
religion should be placed in a condition of being in which they are altogether without the use of them for a considerable length of their duration, as in infancy and childhood ; and great part of the human species go out of the present world before they come to the exercise of those capacities in any degree at all.' His lordship tells us also that all difficulties as to the manner how brutes are to be disposed of, are so apparently and wholly founded in our ignorance, that it is wonderful that they should be insisted on by any except those who are weak enough to think that they are acquainted with the whole system of things.'
The Arabians,' says Mr Sale1, believe that not only mankind, but the genii and irrational animals also, shall be judged on the great day ; when the unarmed cattle shall take vengeance on the horned, till entire satisfaction shall be given to the injured2.' Greaves thought that this opinion took its rise from Ezekiel xfxiv. 17-23.
However, the Rabbins interpret this altogether differently, thus : And surely your own blood will I require,' as if these
words were directed against suicide. The word	they
render soul : thus, of every soul will I require it.' They say that wherever in Scripture the word rI'M applies to the brute
creation it is always in conjunction with	cattle ;' or
reptile ;' or Iv, bird ;' and if noneof these words are joined to it, the expression is either rIN mn,m, beasts of
the earth ;' or rriv	beasts of the field ;' or 13,,'
beasts of the forest ;' or '111, 1111'11,	wild beasts ;' and that
whenever it occurs alone it means the soul of man.'
At the hand of every man's brother will I require it. Although two or three murders are distinctly alluded to prior to the deluge, and several more perhaps included in that expression, the earth was filled with violence through them,' yet we have no evidence that the murderer was visited with death by his fellow-men. Indeed the cases of both Lamech and Cain are evidence of the contrary, and this was the reason, perhaps, that it had so increased before the flood. Hence the necessity of capital punishments being instituted in such cases, after the flood, in order to put a stop to the increase of this crime. It was also
1 Sale's Koran, Preliminary discourse, p. 66, sect. 4.
2 Vide Koran, ch. S, and ch. 81.
CH. IX.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	175
more especially necessary if permission were for the first time granted to shed the blood of animals for food, which would have a tendency to harden their hearts, and familiarize them with death.
Some, however, translate wite/tN, his kinsman.' They tell us that rft.t has this meaning in Gen. xiii. 8 ; xxxi. 23, 46, 54; and consider it as referring by anticipation to the law of the ‘7t42, or Redeemer ' (Numbers xxxv. 19 ; Job xix. 25 ; Ruth
ii. 20.)
Ver. 6. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
It is a curious fact, perhaps even a provision of Almighty wisdom, that murder never can long remain hidden even from man. The power of conscience in such a case seems greatly aggravated, and often leads the criminal to disburden himself of his fearful secret, which the human heart seems too weak to hold. Added to this impulse of the criminal, there is another impulse which actuates the surrounding world, an impulse of curiosity, joined to an intense desire to cultivate justice in such a case, so that surrounding human ingenuity and acuteness is at once at its highest stretch, in order to detect guilt, from the words, looks, gestures and conduct of the suspected. And these two outward and inward impulses together seldom fail to arrive at the truth concerning it, even when no human eye has witnessed the deed, or human ear heard the groans of the sufferer. Thus has Providence written it in blood-red characters in all nature, so that he who runs may read it, that Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
After eluding and exposing the sophisms of the Jesuits on this point of what homicide is, Pascal has well summed it up in his Provincial Letters, thus : Concevez done', mes Peres, que pour 'etre exempt d'homicide, i1 faut agir tout ensemble et par l'autorite de Dieu, et selon la justice de Dieu ; et que, si ces deux conditions ne sont jointer, on peche, soit en tuant avec son autorite, mais sans justice ; soit en tuant avec justice, mais sans son autorite. De la necessite de cette union it arrive selon Saint Augustine que celui qui sans autorite tue un criminel, se rend criminel lui-meme, par cette raison principale qu'il usurpe une
1 Pascal, Lettres Provinciales, p. 34, vol. 2, Letter 14, Edition, 1823, 12mo.
176	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. IX.
autorite qui Dieu ne lui a pas donnee ; et les juges au contraire, qui ont cette autorite, sont neanmoins homicides, s'ils font mourir un innocent contre les lois quils doivent suivre.'
This verse seems to partake both of the nature of a prophecy and a command ; of a prophecy in the manner shewn above, and of a command given to all men to avenge murder by death. Moreover this command was not a Levitical one merely, and therefore of no effect when the Levitical law was abrogated, but universal, given to Noah as the representative of all mankind. It is therefore binding upon all mankind at all times, until God repeals it, which it would be difficult to shew to have been the case as yet. Hence the lawfulness of capital punishments in cases of wilful murder. Whereas a different provision was afterwards made (Numbers xxxv. 11) for him that killeth his neighbour unawares.
For in the image of God made he man. These words shew that murder is not only an injury committed against the man, but an insult to God, consisting in the defacing and destroying of his image. So St James says of cursing man, ch. iii. ver. 9.
Ver. 11. The latter part of this sentence,' says Fairholme 1,
would have been altogether unnecessary, were we not given to understand by it, that the earth or dry land of the antediluvian world had then been destroyed as well as its wicked inhabitants.' But if the limited meaning be applied here to the phrase the earth,' which is suggested by Dr Pye Smith, the intention of the writer will perhaps be as fully preserved as before. The words however of 2 Pet. iii. 6, 7, The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished,' if considered as explanatory of this verse in Genesis, and if literally interpreted, seem to militate against the limited interpretation. Mr Fairholme argues from these two texts and from Job xxii. 16, that the land itself must have been destroyed. It may have been so by volcanic or other means referred to already. Or this might be done merely by the creation of a new diluvial soil, which would in fact be a new earth,' as it were, to us, and would obliterate our foundations ;' for if Mr Fairholme takes this literally as referring to the foundations of the strata, and considers the uppermost stratum insufficient to answer this
1 Fairholme, p. 139.
CH. ix.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	177
description, what should lead him to stop short of the centre of the earth. Is not his own theory of what he calls the foundations, somewhat arbitrary ?
Ver. 12 and 13. On reading these verses we naturally recur to those words of Homer' :
ipcocrcv Aniccirfc, ii TE Kpovicov EY aches on pL E, r‘pas peptircov civepoin-cov.
There exist two opinions as to the rainbow : the first, that it was a sign at this time first placed in the clouds by the Almighty ; the second, that it existed from the beginning, but was then first constituted a sign of God's covenant with man.
The advocates of the first opinion appeal to the following cases as similar, in all of which cases the sign was something new : Isaiah vii. 11 ; Luke i. 18 ; Gen. x v. 8 ; Isaiah xxxviii. ; Judges vi. ; Numbers xvi. 29, 30. In order to account for its non-appearance previous to the flood, they have recourse to the hypothesis, that the state of things mentioned in Genesis ii. 5, when there was no rain, lasted until the deluge ; which is rather a gratuitous supposition. And it does not seem unlikely that this was spoken merely of the days of creation, having no reference to a former period (if fossil rain be a fact) any more than to a subsequent one. Some account for this hypothesis by supposing that at the time of the deluge some great change of inclination took place in the earth's axis, producing a consequent change of climate favourable to the formation of rain ; but of this we have no proof. Others suppose that the power of the sun's rays was increased after the deluge, since owing to the richness of the antediluvial soil the vapours from the earth were too dense to allow of their action, in the formation of a rainbow. It would seem, however, that they would be more dense immediately after the deluge than before it, from the same cause. Bishop Shuttle-worth2, who appears to have held to the absence of rain before the flood, says : We can account for the absence of rain upon any known natural principles only, by the supposition that the proportion of water, as compared with that of dry land, *as much less in the antediluvian ages than it has been subsequently to
1 Iliad, A. line 27,
2 Shuttleworth's Consistency of Revelation with Human Reason, ch. 8,
p. 81, Edit. 1832.	12
178	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. IX.
that crisis. The diminished evaporation which would take place under such circumstances, would apparently produce the result now supposed. So long as the earth was only thinly and partially peopled, such a state of things as that here surmised would not be incompatible with the wants of mankind, though it would be perfectly inconsistent with the general diffusion of population over the whole globe. The change which took place at that same period, in the average duration of human life, would also seem to indicate some alteration of a permanent character in the condition of man's abode upon earth, less favourable to our animal powers. That change, we may observe, though immediate in a very great proportion, was not total and complete till after the lapse of a considerable time subsequent to Noah : a circumstance which well accords with the hypothesis above stated, since it is natural to suppose that the stronger stimulus of vitality would not yield immediately to the operation of changes in climate or other similar causes, but would adapt itself gradually, and through successive generations, to its new position, until it had reached the maximum of depression at which it would remain stationary.'
The book of Enoch speaks of the rainbow as a thing then first created'.
The advocates of the second opinion, on the other hand, quote instances of things being appointed for signs for the first time which yet previously existed, e. g. the Jewish and Christian sacraments, the pillar alluded to in Gen. xxxi. 52, &c. &c.
Horne, in his Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures2, suggests, instead of our reading I do set my bow,' &c., I do appoint my bow,' as expressing the meaning much better. But the fact is that our translation would seem to be wrong altogether, as Adam Clarke in his commentary well observes, for the words ought to be translated My bow have I set in the cloud,' ('rlIV PVT), that is, as sure as that bow of necessity appears there where I have set it, after rain, so shall my promise bind me to preserve the world from another deluge.' The words my bow,' also seem to refer to a bow already existing.
Book of Enoch, ch. 54, vv. 2, 3, p. 56.
2 Vol. i. sec. 2. § 1, p. 159.
Cll. IX.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	179
Bishop Warburton' remarks on these words I do set :" It is wonderful to consider how this matter has been mistaken. Perhaps the word "set" did not a little contribute to it ; the expression being understood absolutely ; when it should have been taken in the relative sense of " set for a token," and in this sense, and only in this sense, the bow was then first set in a cloud.'
)1*, a token,' is the same word that is employed in Gen. iv. 15. The rainbow was a peculiarly fit token of God's promise, for whenever it appears, the rain must be about to cease and the sun shining. It is caused by the reflection and refraction of the sun's rays, by the drops of rain forming the seven, or five, or three, prismatic colours. Probably it was in remembrance of this covenant of God with the world that we find it mentioned in Ezek. i. 28 ; Rev. iv. 3, 4 ; x. 1.
Ver. 15. All flesh. It is a curious fact that we are never told that vegetables were destroyed, and yet many whole genera and species must have been so. Some think that they were recreated after the flood. In the Indian mythology, we have an account of their Noah taking seeds of all kinds into the ark with him. Perhaps Noah might have done so, and Moses omitted to mention it, as he did not intend his narration for a scientific manual.
Ver. 17. This verse asserts the unity of the whole human species, unless indeed we limit the term the whole earth.' Similarly, Gen. i. 27 (which some translate one male and one female,' both being singular) ; iii. 20 ; Rom. v. 12 ; Deut. xxxii. 8 ; Acts xvii. 26.
Ver. 19. Those who advocate the different stocks of mankind would, of course, interpret this in the limited sense mentioned in p. 169.
Ver. 20. Many understand this to mean that Noah was the first husbandman who planted a vineyard ; and account for the longevity of the patriarchs by their happy ignorance of fermented liquors. But we do not find that water-drinkers can now live as long as the patriarchs used to do. r"ri, the wine.'
The Syriac word for wine, which is used in John ii. 3, and Matt.
ix. 17, is ii.SaLa whose root is Arab.	fermentavit ;' thus
1 Divine Legation, 4e. Book iv. note on p. 152, R. R. R. R. p. 226, Vol. ii. Edit. 1837.
12-2
180	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[cn. ix.
shewing that our Saviour himself encouraged the use of fermented liquors. Noah therefore was only wrong in the abuse of them, but probably he was taken by surprise, not knowing their effects, and therefore not guilty in this.
Ver. 21, 22. Le O'er& thought that Adonis or Osiris was the son of IIammon or Cham, and grandson of Cinyras or Noah ; and that the incest of Myrrha with her father was the discovery of Noah's nakedness by his children.
Alost commentators seem to consider that this obscure passage refers to some incestuous deed which is only slightly alluded to, in which Ham was concerned. It is a curious fact that
the word translated his tent' in our version, 4,11N, is literally (apart from the masculine punctuation) her tent.' In Leviticus
6, &c. we see what is meant by exposing the nakedness' of a man.
Professor Jahn2 remarks that Noah, together with his sons and servants, who were engaged with him in the construction of the ark, must, as is shewn by his building of the ark, have been well acquainted at least with certain of the mechanical arts. They had also, without doubt, seen the operations of artificers in other ways besides that of building, and after the deluge imitated their works as well as they could. Hence, not long after the deluge, we find mention of many things, such as edifices, utensils, and ornaments which imply a knowledge of the arts. (Gen. ix. 21; xi. 1-9 ; xiv. 1--16 ; xii. 7, 8 ; xv. 10 ; xvii. 10 ; xviii. 4-6 ;
32 ; xxi. 14 ; xxii. 10 ; xxiii. 13-16 ; xxiv. 22 ; xxvi. 12, 15, 18 ; xxvii. 3, 4, 14 ; xxxi. 19, 27, 34). Traces and imitations of which occur continually, as the attentive reader will find, down to the time of Moses.'
The father of Canaan. From these words some have been led to conclude that the event here narrated occurred some years after the deluge, when Ham had become the father of Canaan. But this is not a necessary consequence, as it might have been a similar case to (Gen. xxv. 23 ; Rom. ix. 11) the one here mentioned. They think that Canaan, Noah's grandson, is denoted by the expression younger son,' in ver. 24 ; and that he joined
1 Vide Gibbon's Miscellaneous Works, p. 436. Extracts from the Journal, sec. 23.
2 Domestic Antiquities of the Jews, ch. v. sect. 81.
CH. IX.1	NOTES ON GENESIS.	181
in insulting Noah. (The literal translation of Tnp;•• :I is his
IT T
little son.') This would account for Canaan's being selected for the curse who was the fourth son of Ham.
Ver. 25. Jahn thinks from these words that slavery existed even before the deluge. Most commentators think that this prophecy was delivered in metre. Cursed be Canaan. They were a very wicked race (Gen. xv. 16); the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were descended from them. They sacrificed their children to devils (Deut. xii. 31). See also Deut. ix. 4 ; Levit. xviii. and xx.
This prophecy was fulfilled in 2 Chron. viii. 7-9. Canaan also, in the Carthaginians, conquered Spain and Italy, and in turn these were conquered by Greece and Rome, the descendants of Jacob 1. The Arabic version however has Cursed be the father of Canaan.'
Egypt was subdued by the Persians, who were descended from Shem, and afterwards by the Greeks, who were descended from Japheth, and ever since it has been in subjection to the posterity of either Shem or Japheth. All Africa, too, has been under the dominion of the Romans, Saracens, and Turks.
winr .nr, A servant of servants. Compare Levit.
vi. 18 ; vii. 2. This is a Hebraism, like holy of holies,' King of kings,' &c.
unto his brethren.'	Some confine this to the
descendants of Cush, Mizraim, and Phut, merely ; others extend the term, according to its common scriptural use.
Ver. 26. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem. Some consider that the great judgment on the sons of Canaan, executed by the sons of Shem, is yet to come. Kennicott suggests the fol-
lowing translation	Blessed of Jehovah, my God, be Shem.'
God is called the God of Shem,' because of him as concerning the flesh Christ came ; and also because the Hebrews were his peculiar people.
Ver. 27. God shall enlarge Japheth. Margin of our translation shall persuade. There would seem to be a play upon the words here, such as occurs in Gen. xlix. 8, 16, 19, and Gen. v. 29, &c.
If it be understood of persuading Japheth,' it will allude to
1 Bishop Newton On the Prophecies. Dissertation 1, p. 20.
182	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. IX.
the conversion of Japheth's posterity ; and their dwelling in the tents of Shem,' to the Gentiles becoming heirs of the promises made to the Jews, they themselves being cast out.
If it be understood of enlarging Japheth' it may allude to the territory of Japheth in the dispersion which was immense, or it may allude to the number of Japhetli's sons being greater than the sons of the other two.
Janus, the heathen god of Gates, is derived from Japheth.
And he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. This may be understood either of God, or of Japheth, dwelling in the tents of Shem.
The Hebrew text seems to favour the opinion which refers it to God. The Targum of Onkelos refers it to Him (tril,PV, "Trl
LTZ 11-1'.nVitl). The Syriac, the LXX., the Samaritan, the
Vul-
gate, and the Arabic, are all equally indefinite with the Hebrew. If we understand it as predicated of God, it was fulfilled in the Old Testament in, Psalm cxxxii. 8 ; Numb. vii. 89 ; and in the New Testament in John i. 14 ; Matt. iii. 16 ; xvii. 5.
If we understand it of Japheth, it was perhaps fulfilled in the Greek and Roman conquests of Asia, and, finally, in the British empire in India.
Some translate it, May he .dwell in the tents of Shem.'
Bishop Sherlock' argues on the whole that this peculiar blessing which Noah bestowed on Shem, could not have referred to temporal things, since Japheth was the elder, and equally obedient with Shem. He would therefore have been entitled to the temporal blessing rather than Shem ; but that it was a spiritual blessing, which did not rest with the father to bestow, or not at pleasure, but which he pronounced in a spirit of prophecy, as God's interpreter. But this takes for granted, first, that Japheth was the elder, which some doubt ; and, secondly, that Japheth had not on some unrecorded occasion displeased Noah.
Ham, signifies 'burnt' or black' (n), Arabicr"'" ; Shem
(tV.1) renown ;' and Japheth (r1V) enlargement.'
Ver. 28. The Hebrew text reckons from the creation of Adam to the death of Noah 1906 years. The LXX. 2492 years. The Samaritan 1557 years.
1 Discourses on Prophecy, Works, Vol. iv. Discourse iv.
CII. X.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	183
CHAPTER X.
ACONTROVERSY has arisen as to whether Japheth or Shem was the eldest of Noah's sons. The advocates of Shem's seniority refer to the first verse of this chapter ; while the advocates of Japheth's seniority refer to Gen. v. 32 ; vi. 10 ; vii. 13 ; ix. 18.
Ver. 2. The sons of Japheth were Gomer. His descendants afflicted the Jews on their return from Babylon. Ezek.
xxxviii. 6.	The word `lbla comes from `1WY 'to consume.'
T
The Gomerites are supposed to be the Cimmerians (mentioned in Odyssey, Book n. line 12, &c.) They appear to have peopled Phrygia, as well as Galatia, and other parts of Asia Minor. There is a river Gomel in Kurdistan. Rosenmuller (Scholia in loco, p. 107) identifies the Gomerites with the most ancient Celts. The Celts, according to Pritchard (Vol. in. p. 50), occupied a portion of Spain, Gaul, Germany, Bohemia, Bavaria, Denmark, Noricum, Pannonia, Wales, Ireland, and Britain. He makes them of what are called the Indo-European family.
And Magog. His descendants are mentioned in Ezekiel xxxviii. 2 ; xxxix. 1, 6 ; Rev. xx. 8. The Sarmatians, or Scy-thians, were thought to be descended from him. Edwards thinks that the Georgians came from him. Some think the Tartars also. Dr Pritchard reckons these among the Allophyllian tribes. He tells us that this tribe was altogether a peculiar race, and that their language is on the whole unique. He divides them into the Colchi, including the Lazi and Mingrelians, and the Kahtuhlians, or Iberians. The Tartar race is divisible into three branches : the Tungusian, the Mongolian, and the Turkish ; and these are subdivisible into very numerous tribes.
And Madai. Said to be the father of the Medes, who are mentioned 2 Kings xviii. 11 ; Isaiah xiii. 17 ; xxi. 2 ; Jer. li. 11; Dan. v. 28 ; vi. 8, 12 ; Acts ii. 9. Bochart thought that the Samaritans came from them. It must be borne in mind, that though the Medes at a later period inhabited Iran, yet they were at first wholly distinct. Then they were conquered by the Assyrians, and after the death of Sennacherib they became again independent. They soon conquered the Per-
184	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. X.
sians, and next, after a time, the Assyrians. In the time of Cyrus, the Medes and Persians became united into one kingdom. Some of the cuneiform monuments deciphered by Colonel Rawlinson belong to this last-mentioned period. Their earliest spoken language was the Zend. They, according to their own traditions, migrated from the east, probably from Sogdiana (Pritchard, Vol. Iv. pp. 48-51). From them Pritchard derives the modern Persians of three kinds : viz. the Tajiks, or old nations who dwelt in towns ; the Ilyats, or Persian, Turkish, Arabian, and Mongolian nomades ; and the Karaschi, or complete wanderers, like gipsies. Rosen-muller gathers, however (Bib. Geog. Vol. I. p. 174, ch. 5) from the Zend books, that the Medes, Persians, and Bactrians, were originally one race of people. If so they would be of the Arian family.
And Javan. The Greeks were said to be descended from him. Indeed Ion,' and Javan ' are the same word in Hebrew. his descendants,' are mentioned in Ezek. xxvii. 13 ; Isaiah
lxvi, 19 ; Dan. viii. 21 ; x. 20 ; Joel iii. 6.	Bishop Thirlwall
identifies the Ionians with the ancient Pelasgians (Greece, Vol. I. ch. 2-5, especially pp. 116-121). These Pelasgians, his lordship shews, were the original settlers in Greece (ch. ii.
p. 37).	They settled first in Arcadia, Boeotian Thrace, and
other places. They were wandering people before settling in Greece (p. 51). Their original language was said, by Herodotus, to have been spoken in his time (p. 53). Baron Humboldt considers the Pelasgian tongue to have been a relic of a primmval language like the ancient Iberian. This race afterwards peopled a part of Italy, including CEnotria. They have left considerable monuments in Greece ; for instance, the walls of Mycena and Tyrius (p. 61). The Egyptian, Phoenician, and Phrygian settlements in Greece ; as, for instance, those under Danaus, Cecrops, Cadmus, Erectheus, and perhaps Pelops, Thirlwall refers to a later period than that of the Pelassirs (ch. iii.). He considers the Phoenician migrations into Greece ante-Homeric. He thinks that the Ionians came first to the eastern side of the Peloponnesus. Pelasgians were perhaps so called because they came by sea (7reXa-yos).
And Tribal. His descendants are mentioned in Ezek. xxvii. 13 ; xxxviii. 2, 3. They were perhaps the Tartars.
This tribe and the next are always mentioned together in
CH. X.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	185
the Old Testament. They appear to have inhabited the southern region of the Caucasus. Some have called him the father of the Iberians. Pritchard divides the Iberian tribes in Spain into the Turduli, the Turdetani, the Lusitanians, and the Iberians, who lived east of the Rhone, and were subsequently driven out by the Ligurians, the most ancient inhabitants of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, and of part of Italy (Vol. in. book iv. chap. 2).
And Meshecli. His descendants are mentioned in Ezek. xxvii. 13 ; xxxviii. 2. Some think that the Cappadocians and the Muscovites came from him. If the latter, I suppose the Iotuns, Finnes, and Lappes, at least, and perhaps the Tshudes and Ugrians must have come from him. Pritchard appears to be of opinion (Vol. iv. pp. 560-563) that the aborigines of Cappadocia were a Syro-Arabian race, who had been gradually displaced by Medes.
And Tiras. Only mentioned in 1 Chron. i. 5. From him were supposed to come the Thracians.
Ver. 3. And the sons of Gomer ; Ashkenaz. Mentioned in Jer. li. 27. His race perhaps peopled the north-west of Asia Minor, and the province Ascania. Cahnet thought they were the Ascantes who, according to Pliny, (Hist. Nat. vi. 7) lived on the Black Sea. Ashkenaz is thought by some to have given name to the Euxine Sea. Some think that the Germans came from him. The Germans, Pritchard divides into four great tribes , 1, the Herminones ; 2, the Ingmvones ; 3, the Istwvones ; and 4, the Hilliriones. The first •(including the Siacri, the Sigambri, the Batavi, the Tubantes, the Lygians and Vandals, and the Basternians), spoke high German. The second (including the Vindili, the Goths, and the Burgundians), spoke Mceso-Gothic. The third spoke Scandinavian, or Old Norse.
And Riphath. Josephus traces the Paphlagonians to him. Ainsworth (Commentary in loco) suggests that the Riptman mountains in Scythia take their name from him. In 1 Chron. i. 6 it is written in the Hebrew Diphat, but the LXX. has Riphat (pc(paT).
And Togarmah. Mentioned in Ezek. xxxviii. 6 ; xxvii. 14. Ptolemy places the Trogmi, who are thought to be his descendants, in the regions of Pontus and Cappadocia. Rosenmiiller makes this to be Armenia. The Georgians were said (by Arch-
I86	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. X.
bishop Stephen, in the 13th century) to have been descended from Togarmah, but Pritchard treats this as a complete forgery (Vol. xi. p. 265). He says their language is peculiar and unconnected with those around it. Pritchard tells us that Ilaik, from whom the Armenian race is descended, was said to be the son of Theglath, who was said to be Togarmah. He suspects this to be a monkish legend, perhaps founded in truth (Vol. iv. p. 250). He considers, however, that they were of the Asian family, or Indo-European, as evidenced by their Medo-Persian words and names of heroes, and customs, civil and religious.
Ver. 4. And the sons of Javan ; Elishah. Ilis descendants are mentioned in Ezek. xxvii. 7. Josephus says the Lolians were descended from him ; others think the Hellenes generally (Sect. 3). The Hellenes are divided by Thirlwall (Vol. T. Chap. 4) into four tribes ; the Ionians or Pelasgians ; the iEolians or Myricans (Vol. i. p. 91) ; the Dorians ; and the Achwans. The Dorians settled first in Argolis, the .zEolians in Thessaly, Corinth, Elis, and Locris.
And Tarshish. Ezek. xxvii. 12, 25 ; Jonah i. 3 ; Acts xxi. 39 ; Psalm xlviii. 7. Josephus tells us that Cilicia and the country around it was anciently called Tarshish. Rosenmiiller says Sine dubio est Hispania, ut Bochartus in Phareg, Lib.
c. 7. et Michaelis in Spicilegio, Part i. p. 82.' Tarshish seems to have stood for many different localities at different times. Sometimes it is put for the whole coast of Asia Minor; at other times for the Mediterranean, and again, at others, for the Indian Ocean. The word VV111 means literally the sea.' It signifies the Topaz in Exod. xxviii. 20 (rendered by Montanus Chry-solythus' and in our translation Beryl') ; xxxix. 13 ; and either Topaz or Amber (most probably the former) in Cant. v. 4 ; Ezek. i. 16, (Vide Gesenius' and Lee's Lexicons), perhaps because these or either of them were found in the region of Tarshish. Gesenius thinks it means Tartassus in Spain, a colony of the Phoenicians. He refers to Psalm lxxii. 10 ; Isaiah xxiii. 1, 6, 10 ; lxvi. 19 ; Jonah i. 3 ; iv. 2 ; Ezek. xxxviii. 13.
And Kittim. Probably the descendants of Heth. Some suppose the Macedonians (Isaiah xxiii. 1) and Italians (Dan. xi. 3) to come from them. If the Italians come from them, it must probably have been the Sicani of South Italy, or the CEnotrians, or else that part of the ancient Iberian race which peopled a part
CH. X.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	187
of Italy, besides parts of Spain and Gaul (according to Pritchard), and used the Basque language. Bochart and Michaelis think the middle part of Italy, about Rome.
And Dodanim. Some trace the Dorians to this branch. The LXX. render this word by Palm.. It is written Rodanim
in 1 Chron. i. 7.	From the Dorians came the Spartans.
Thirlwall thinks that the Dorians first entered Thessaly from the north (chap. iv. p. 102). It could not mean that the inhabitants of Rhodes, for they, in common with the inhabitants of Cyprus and Crete, were called Telchinim anciently (Thirlwall, chap. III. p. 72).
Ver. 5. By these were the isles of the nations divided, in their lands.
Gesenius says this word expresses the efficient cause.
The isles ("N), were generally put for the countries beyond the
sea, including the continents. Some understand by this the isles of the Mediterranean, and coasts of Greece, Italy, and Spain. It alludes, perhaps to Europe generally, or at any rate to all the Allophyllian race.
To whom does the word these, 1117t42 refer ? to the sons of
Noah generally ? or to the sons of Japheth ? In either case it seems to me to imply a dispersion before the destruction of Babel, since the Babel builders were the posterity of Ham. See more on this subject in the notes on chap. xi.
The word tongue,' 11th, occurs three times in the tenth chapter, and the word lip,' IZV, .five times in the eleventh chapter. The only fact opposed to the idea that two different dispersions are mentioned here and in the eleventh chapter, is, that the genealogy of Shem is given down to Peleg in chap. x. 25, and it is carried down to Abram in chap. xi. 16-32 ; Peleg being contemporary with Nimrod ; the one the great grandson of Shem, the other the grandson of Ham. See another interpretation altogether of chap. xi. 25, in note on it.
Ver. 6. And the sons of Ham ; Cush. From Cush came
the Ethiopians, some Arabs, and the Moors.	The Ethiopians
properly so called,' says Dr Pritchard, are always distinguished by the national name of Cush, and the Septuagint always translates Cush by AiOloires, " Ethiopians."' These interpreters, as they resided in Egypt, must have known the people whom they
188	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. X.
have so designated. Hence a passage in the prophet Jeremiah, which seems to have been a Hebrew proverb, affords sufficient proof that the genuine Ethiopians were a black people : Can the leopard change his spots, or the Cush his skin ' (Phys. Hist.
of Man, Vol. H. p. 248).	Plutarch,' says Wilkinson, tells us
that Egypt was called Chemi (Xrbut), from the blackness of its soil (xcip.e); may not Ethiopia, the black country, have been a translation of Chemi ?' (Ancient Egypt, ch. i. Vol. i. p. 5). Professor Stuart suggests that Cush was the same as Cuth (2 Kings xvii. 30), and Cuthah (2 Kings xvii. 24). He thinks that (111) Cuth may be no more than the Aramaean form of (V.,1) Cush ; just as Asshur (1)V) was called by the Syrians and Chaldeans
Athur (-Irv), and by the Arabians )1, and hence by the Greeks
and Romans Iturcoa. Chusistan is now a province on the east of the Tigris. (Hebrew Chrestomathy, p. 133. Oxford Edition.) Bochart (Lib. iv. c. 2, Geograph. Sac. de Cuschceis) understood the Arabs by the descendants of Cusli ; but the pure Arabs were of the race of Kahtan, or Jok tan descended from Shem. He must therefore have meant the African Arab tribes. Pritchard enumerates these Arab tribes under the heads of Arabs in Sahara, in Egypt, and in Nubia. This race appears to have undergone considerable physical variations from its primitive continental type (Vol. H. p. 264). The Arabians belonged, of course, to Shem. But it appears that some tribes of both Ham and Shem became so intimately connected in primmval times as to take part in the development of a common language. Many tribes also of Arabs migrated into Africa in the first centuries after the propagation of Islam (Humboldt, Cosmos, Vol. i. p. 571, &c. ; Pritchard, Vol. it. p. 253). Whether the Hottentots came from Cush it is difficult to say ; but it seems probable that they were some of the Aborigines of Africa, gradually driven back by the encroachments of the Kafirs, whose characteristics differ much from the other nations of Africa, (vide Pritchard, Vol. H. p. 290), although their language forms, together with that of the Hottentots, one family (p. 321.) The fact of the Kafirs practising the rite of circumcision, while they have no other custom of the Islam nations, looks as if they were of the Hebrew stock originally. The Hottentots consist of five tribes : the Gonaaqua Hottentots, the Colony Hottentots, the Kera Hottentots, the Namaaqua Hottentots, and the
CH. X.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	189
Saabs or Bushmen. The Kafirs consist of five tribes, viz. the Amakosah, the Bechuana, the Damara, and the Amazulah tribes, and the people of the Natal coast about Delagoa bay.
In Numb. xxi. 1, as compared with Exodus ii. 15 — 21, 2 Kings xix. 9, 2 Chron. xiv. 9, Ezekiel xxix. 10, Cush is perhaps identical with Susiana. From this stock some have supposed the Goths, Saxons, and Scots to come. The Goths, however, Pritchard makes one North-Eastern branch of the Germanic race (p. 360, &c. Vol. m.). And the Saxons, some say, were the Cherusci, others the Chamari, both Germanic tribes (Vol. in. p. 366). The Scots (properly so called) were supposed to have migrated from Ireland, and therefore to be of Allophyl-lian or Japhetical origin.
And Mizraim. From him came, of course, the Egyptian empire, which is called the land of Ham (Ps. cv. 23). Some have conjectured that Jupiter Ammon, to whom there was a temple in Lydia, was Ham. Thebes was called, Ezek. xxx., " Hammon-No," (vide M. d'Abbe Hauteville, Discours. p. 94) in visible allusion to Ham the son of Noah. Mr Maurice (Religions of the World, Lect. iv. p. 129) thinks that the Egyptians by Hammon, or the hidden God,' typified Jehovah, whom no man
hath seen, nor can see.'	Egypt appears,' says the Chevalier
Bunsen, on the stage of history from the very beginning as an empire formed out of the upper and lower country. The country itself is generally called " the two countries." The title of their kings, down to the latest period, ran thus : " Lord of upper and lower Egypt." The Hebrew name • of Egypt, Mizraim, i. e. the two Misr, contains a similar allusion.' (Egypt's Place in Universal History, Vol. i. p. 73, sec. 1, ch. 4.) Wilkinson considers that the progress of civilization was from the upper to the lower, or in a northerly direction (Ancient Egypt, Vol. i. ch. 1, p. 4). Bunsen negatives the alleged Indian origin of the Egyptians, by tracing their chronology in an almost unbroken line up to Menes. Pritchard tells us (in Vol. iv.) that the same religious and philosophical dogmas were common to both nations (p. 193, &c.), although the languages are different, and the Coptic is more allied to the Semitic languages ; he thinks that the two nations are deducible from a common source (p. 225, &c.) ; he shews the utter improbability of the Egyptians having been a colony from
190	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII. x.
India, which has been maintained by some (pp. 218, 219). This fact affords an argument for the connexion between the races of Ham and Japheth.
Phut. Ezekiel xxvii. 10 ; xxxviii. 5 (Hebrew, tlb, translated Lybia' in our version). Jerome mentions a region in Lybia, called Regio Phutensis.' Ptolemy mentions a place called Putea, in Africa Proper. There is a river Phut in Mauritania.
Canaan.	The Hebrew language appears to have be-
longed,' says Dr Pritchard, 'to the Canaanitish or Hamite branch, the Syrian to the Shemite.' A nd yet these are cognate dialects, which fact (if fact it be) affords an argument for the original connexion between the two races, of Ham and Chem. It would appear that the Hebrews adopted the speech of Canaan, on coming to reside there, and perhaps lost their own.
The Arabians have a tradition that Ham had another son (probably grandson ? and son of eanaan ?) Amalek, from whom the primitive Amalekites (mentioned in Gen. xiv. 7) were sprung. The Amalekites (mentioned in Exodus xvii., and in the book of Judges, and 1 Samuel xxx.) were descended from Amalek, the grandson of Esau. Michaelis thinks that the Canaanites, whom the Israelites conquered, came from the Arabian coast of the Red Sea, where their primitive abode was. If so they were perhaps Shemitic and not Hamitic, having dispossessed the descendants of Ham before that time.
Ver. 7. And the sons of Cush; Seba. Seba, whence came the Sabeeans. Meroe (Rosenmiiller). Three different people of this name are mentioned in this chapter, and a fourth in chapter xxv. 3. Three of these begin with P ; one of those in chap. iii. begins with D. N1D (Gen. x. 7). This people settled on the South-East of the Arabian Gulf, above Yemen. Perhaps the Yemanites were descended from him. These Sabwans are referred to, Isai. xlv. 14 ; Ezek. xxiii. 42 ; Ps. lxxii. 10. N1W (at the close of the verse) is referred to in Ezekiel xxvii. 22 ; xxxviii.
13.	It was near the Persian Gulf. t•t= (Gen. x. 28) was in
the southern part of Arabia Felix. It is mentioned in Joel iii. 8 ; Isai. lx. 6 ; Jer. vi. 20 ; PS. lxxii. 15. The Queen of Sheba (1 Kings x.) came from there.
And Havilah (Gen. xxv. 18 ; 1 Sam. xv. 7 ; Exod. xv. 22.) This people were the Chaulatai, some think, in South Arabia. See also Notes on Gen. chap. ii. ver. 11.
CH. X.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	191
And Sabtah. Sabota in South Arabia.
Raamah and Sabtechah. Might this Raamah have populated a part of India ? (see p. 199). However, there is a city called Rhegma, by Ptolemy, on the shore of the Persian Gulf, and near it Dadaen or Doden. The LXX. have Rhagma.
Dedan. (Ezek. xxvii. 15 ; xxxviii. 13) an island in the Persian Gulf.
Ver. 8. And Cush begat Nimrod, &c. Probably the same as Ninus. Some think the same as Belus. He was the first king of Shinar, i. e. of Babylon and Mesopotamia and afterwards, as we shall see, of Nineveh. The LXX. read ,yryac here.
Some derive Nimrod (71t) from	he rebelled ;' others
from	the son of rebellion.' The 7') is said to be pre-
served 
in Ninus. He is mentioned in 1 Chron. i. 10. His posterity perhaps were called Chasdim (Isaiah xxiii. 13). Hyde (Hist. Relig. Persarum Vet. cap. ii. p. 36) considers it nomen
vituperii.'	The Arabic words,' says Rosenmuller (Bib. Geog.
Vol.ii.p. 106, chap. viii. note 114)-;	which lite-
•
rally correspond to the Hebrew expression used here of Nimrod' (rt.t=), signify in the Koran, Sur. 28-18, a powerful
despot or oppressor.' Nothing was more common among the people of the East (especially the Persians and Arabs) than to express any peculiar trait of character by the imposition of a surname. Of this description,' says Rosenmiiller (chap. 9, note 29, ibidem) are the names El-Mokanna, Aswad El•Ansa, Saffach, Motennebi, Hariri, Atter, Hafiz,' &6. Nimrod is by some supposed to have been the first that rebelled against the constituted patriarchal form of government.
Ver. 9. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord. Hunter. There seem to be two opinions with regard to the character and occupations of this man. One opinion is, that in those early days, before the march of civilization had been able to progress much, and in which the brute creation had not yet receded before the commanding intellect of man, Nimrod distinguished himself, and served his country by successful enterprises against their enemies, the brutes. The other opinion is, that Nimrod was merely a hunter of men, i. e. a warrior or conqueror ; or, perchance, as Rosenmiiller and Hyde appear to have thought, an oppressor ;'
192	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. X.
perhaps he was a persecutor of the pious, and an idolater. The expression 'before the Lord' has been differently interpreted. It may either mean against the Lord' (compare 1 Chron. xiv. 8 and Num. xvi. 2), or in the opinion of the Lord' (compare
Prov. xiv. 12 (V.)'N".)th) ; Isa. lix. 19 ; Jonah iii. 3 ; Gen. xxiii.
16 ; Acts vii. 20 ; 2 Cor. x. 4), or by God's aid' (compare
Numbers xxxii. 21).	Wherefore it is said,' i. e. it was a com-
mon proverb in the time of Moses.
Ver. 10. And the beginning of his kingdom. Writers on population have observed that there is a tendency among mankind to increase everywhere up to that point at which the numbers become too great to be supported out of the land, and for the former available supply. At this point they generally begin to migrate. The first effect of this migration is the division of property resulting in inequality of rank or condition. In this manner Nimrod might have arisen as a prince or a monarch, if we assume the truth of the first opinion about him already mentioned.
Was Babel.
It would seem that, so far as history has recorded, the great masters of nations,' says Mr Vaux, were in the earliest times and for ages subsequent, descendants of Ham, and not of Shem and Japheth. For we know that from Cush, Mizraim, and Canaan, the three children of Ham, came those princes who so long ruled over Babylon, Egypt, and Syria. There is no reason to suppose that for a long period the separate or united empires of Babylon and Nineveh extended beyond their own frontiers, or came into collision with any of the adjoining nations. It is more likely that for many centuries the empire of the plains watered by the Euphrates and Tigris was divided between the Assyrians of Nineveh and the inhabitants of Babylon, and that each city was in its turn dominant, or subject, according to the valour or weakness of its princes' (Nineveh and Persepolis, chap. ir. p. 9).
Babylonia, the province of which Babel, or Babylon, was the capital, as Irak-el-Arab. The south-west part was called by Ezekiel (xii. 13 ;) and by Jeremiah (xxiv. 5 ; xxv. 12 ; 1. 8) Chaldea, or the land of the Chaldeans. These Chaldeans had the earliest possession of Babylon. Cuneiform inscriptions which have lately been deciphered by Colonel Rawlinson and
CH. X.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	193
Professor Grotefend, belong to a later period than the Chaldean rule, to the Persian rule in Babylon, and contains the history of the Achaamenian dynasty (vide Asiatic Journal, Vol. x. Parts 1, 2, 3, by Rawlinson).
Rosenmuller (chap. viii. note 127) assigns good reasons for the opinion that the Kurds are the descendants of the primitive • Chaldeans. He refers to Gesenius and Schultens in favour of the opinion. The early greatness of Babylon was in a measure owing to her advantageous position between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and the Indus and Mediterranean sea, and to her rich alluvial soil. The inhabitants were first led to cultivate the art of constructing canals, &c. by the necessity of keeping out the periodical overflowing-s of the Euphrates, and this led to the formation of those wonderful achievements in this way for which they were so celebrated. These canals, which intersected the country in every direction, are called the rivers of Babel ' (Psalm cxxx vii. 1).
Ver. 10. And Erech. As to Erech,' says Jonathan Edwards, (note in loco) 'it is probably the same as occurs in Ptolemy under the name of Erecca, and which is placed by him at the last or most sudden turning of the common channel of the Tigris and Euphrates.' He probably got this idea from Bochart. The Arche-vites (Ezra iv. 9) are thought to have migrated from Erech to Samaria. Buttman thought that it was Edessa. Erech was corrupted by the Greeks into (;pxon,' says Colonel Rawlinson (Asiatic Journal, Vol. x. Part i. p. 22). 'Its true Chaldiran name was Warka, under which title it is described by the early Arabic geographers as the birth-place of Abraham, with an evident allusion to the Ur of the Chaldees. The ruins which still retain the name of Warka are to be seen to the west of the Hye, near its point of confluence with the Euphrates, but they are now rarely accessible, owing to the inundation of the surrounding country.'
And Accad. LXX. Arcad. The Syriac has :=1. Several Hebrew MSS. have 1>t, which was the ancient name,' says Rosenmiiller, of a city of Mesopotamia that was afterwards called Nisibis.' (Vide also Jahn's Heb. Commonwealth, Book r. Sect. iii. p. 4). The Greek citcpa was a generic title for a lofty embattled palace,' and in this sense still applies to numerous ruins in Babylonia. The Accad, or Accar, of Genesis, I consider,' says Colonel Rawlinson, ' to be 6.3.A1ic., near Baghdad, which is
13
194	NOTES ON GENESIS..	[CH. X.
called in ancient oriental writers sometimes " the hill of Nimrod," and sometimes the " palace of Nebuchadnezzar.. "
And Calneh, called Calno (Isaiah x. 9), supposed to be Chelne, or Ctesiphon, on the east of Babylon (Gen. xiv. 1; Isaiah xi. 12). General opinion,' says Colonel Rawlinson, is in favour of Ctesiphon, but from the evidence of the Turks I prefer the Chaldean ruins of Kalnidha near Baghdad.'
In the land of Shinar. Some think that this use of the name Shinar is proleptical here, its derivation, IrrW, that which is shaken out,' referring to the dispersion. Arabic,), 1, ejecit. Jerome (de nomine Hebrceorum) explains it by excussio dentium, from V/.1 and 1V.
Ver. 11. And out of that land went forth Asshur. Some consider that Asshur, the son of Shem, migrated to avoid Nimrod's tyranny. Others read it, out of that land he went forth to Asshur,' and understand it to affirm that Nimrod went into Assyria. As similar instances of this construction they quote 2 Sam. vi. 10 ; 1 Chron. xiii. 13 ; 2 Sam. x. 2 ; 1 Chron. xix. 2. In favour of this rendering it is urged that there is no reason why Asshur, a son of Shem, should be mentioned among the sons of Ham, before his birth had ever been mentioned at all. Asshur was the name of the land of Assyria, not the Assyrian empire. The second appears to be the best rendering.
And he builded Nineveh. Bochart thinks that Nimrod called Nineveh after his son Ninus. This view is supported by the Targums, Onkelos and Jerusalem. Archbishop Ussher, however, supposes Ninus to have commenced his reign B. c. 1267, and to be succeeded by Semiramis, who reigned 42 years. Amraphel, a king of Shinar, is mentioned in Abraham's time (Gen. xiv. 1). In the time of Jonah, B. c. 825, Nineveh was a large city (i. 2). The prophet speaks of its being a three days' journey in circumference (Jonah iii. 3). It is said to have contained 120,000 persons at least (Jonah iv. 11). This account exactly coincides with the four principal ruins which are now found there ; viz. Khorsabad, Kayunjik, Karamles, and Nimroud, which form the corners of a very extensive square, and which in Jonah's time, probably, formed the outskirts of the city.
Jonah (iii. 7 ; iv. 11) also speaks of much cattle' being within the city ; and this also agrees with the fact that there was much grass-land, or at any rate land not built upon, within the
CH. X.1	NOTES ON GENESIS.	195
walls. The different palaces were probably founded by successive monarchs. Possibly the palace of Nimroud, on the north-west, now laid open after having been hid for 24 centuries and more, was the work either of Nimrod himself, or his immediate successors (vide Layard's Nineveh, passim ; Plan 2. Chap Ili. of north-west palace of Nimroud.)
The Pul, or Phul, who lived 50 years after Jonah, was supposed to be the father of Sardanapulus. Tiglath Pileser was the last king, and is supposed to have been Arbaces. Tiglath Pileser conquered Rezin and Damascus, and put an end to the Assyrian empire there. Some think that when the Medes destroyed the Nineveh of Nimrod, another at once arose out of the ruins. There were perhaps two cities of this name, one on the Tigris and another on the Euphrates.
And the city Rehoboth.	This is added,' says Ainsworth,
because Rehoboth signifieth also " streets," but here it is the name of a city which the Greek and Chaldee versions do confirm.' In Chaldee Barth' means the same thing, and Birtha is mentioned by Ptolemy. Some think that it lay on the Tigris, not far from the mouth of the Lycus. There is another Rehoboth mentioned Gen. xxxvi. 37. This Rosenmiiller thinks is
L3./6 The Arabian geographers placed it at Rabbah on the Euphrates ; the Talmudists at Borsippa. Colonel Rawlinson thought it to be Nimritd (As. Jour. Vol. x. Part i. p. 26).
And Caleh ; the same is a great city. To which of the three cities these last words refer is not certain. That it was true of Nineveh we learn from Jonah iii. 2, 3, and from the recent discoveries of Layard. It is much disputed whether this city was the same as Calach, or Chalech, and whether these last two
were different places.	Caleb,' says Colonel Rawlinson, (the
Halah of the captivity, XaXa in Isidore, and Halus in Tacitus), I suppose to be identical with the Holwan of Syriac and Arabic history ; the ruins of which are to be seen at Sir Pul-i-Zohab' (As. Jour. Vol. x. Part i. p. 23).
Ver. 12. Resen. Resen, or more properly Dasen, as it was written by the LXX., is placed by Colonel Rawlinson at Yassin Tappeh in the plain of Shahrizor, the original seat of the Dasini Kurds. Bochart thinks it is the Larissa of Xenophon (Phaleg. col. 237).
13-2
196	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII. X.
The same is a great city. This was, perhaps, in the time of Moses, the metropolis of the Assyrian empire.
Ver. 13. And Mizraim begat the Ludims. Lud is spoken of in Ezek. xxvii. 10 ; xxx. 5 ; Isaiah lxvi. 19. But perhaps this was Lud the son• of Shem, or both. They were probably an African tribe. The Jerusalem Paraphrase makes them the inhabitants of Mareotis in Egypt.
And the Anamims. Herodotus asserts that the Ammonians were descended partly from the Ethiopians, and partly from the Egyptians. They are therefore supposed to be the same as these. Bochart thought that they dwelt in Nasamonitis. Perhaps the Amians and Geramantes were their descendants.
And the Lehabims ; perhaps settled in Lybia proper. Lydia afterwards sent a colony to Hellas or Greece.
And the Naphtuhims, inhabited, perhaps, Marmorica, near Egypt. Some place them about the lake Serbonis. Bochart thinks that they lived in Lybia. Others conjecture in Ethiopia, near Meroe.
Ver. 14. And the Pathrusims, the inhabitants of Egyptian Thebes. Pathros appears to stand for all Egypt in Isai. xi.
11.	It is mentioned in Ezek. xxix. 14, and Jerem. xliv. 15.
And the Casluhims (from whence came out the Philistims). Judges xiii. and xiv. &c. ; 1 Chron. i. 12. Bochart thinks that these were the Colchians.
And the Caphtorims. Jer. xlvii. 4 ; Deut. ii. 23 ; Amos ix.
7.	These probably settled near the former, for the Philistines
are called often Caphtorim Deut. ii. 23 ; Jer. xlvii. 4 ; Amos ix. 7. Rosenmiiller identifies them with the Cretans. Calmet makes them the inhabitants of Cyprus. The Targums of Jerusalem and Jonathan read Cappadocia. Some have conjectured Caphtor to be identical with Coptur in the Nile. Others have supposed it to be Crete. Crete and Cyprus were called anciently Telchiniaa (Paus. ii. 5, 6 ; ix. 19, 1 ; Diod. Sic. v. 55).
Ver. 15. And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn. Josh. xi. 8 ; xix. 28. He built Sidon, so early celebrated (Judges xviii. 7 ; 1 Kings v. 6) ; and Tyre was ' a daughter of Sidon' (Isaiah xxiii. 12). The chief city of Phoenicia, called in Joshua's time Great Sidon ; celebrated by Homer, Virgil, and other profane authors. Its destruction was foretold by Ezekiel, B.c. 589, and accomplished B.C. 351. Vide Keith's account in his Evidence of Prophecy.
CH. X.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	197
And Heth, of whom came the Hittites, Gen. xv. 20. They placed themselves about Hebron, as we learn from Gen. chaps. xxiii. and xxv.
Ver. 16. The Jebusite. A city was called after him Jebus, and Salem, and last of all Jerusalem. They remained in their original settlements till David's time (2 Sam. v. 6-9 ; Judges xix. 10).
The Amorites. Amos ii. 9 ; Num. xiii. 29. They were very powerful (Gen. xv. 16 ; Num. xxi. 21). They existed on the East and West of the Red Sea.
Girgasite. Matt. viii. 28, 34 ; Luke viii. 26.
Ver. 17. Hivite. Gen. xxxiv. 2 ; xxxvi. 2 ; Exod. iii. 8. From them came the Gibeonites, Josh. xi. 19 ; Judges iii. 3. They lived round about Lebanon.
Arkite, round about Lebanon. (Rosenmiiller).
Sinite, round about Lebanon.
Ver. 18. Arvadite. They peopled the island of Aradus, and the opposite coast.
Zemarite. Their country afterwards fell to the Benjamites, Josh. x viii. 22. They founded Simyra in Phoenicia. (Rosen-m tiller).
Hamathite inhabited Epiphania on the Orontes. (Rosen-muller).
Afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. These words were probably introduced by Moses to account for the different boundaries of Canaan given in Num. xxxiv.
Ver. 19. Sidon : comp. this description with Numb. xxxiv. Gaza, Judges xvi.
Sodom and Gomorrah.
Ver. 20. After their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.
The tongues of one branch, although they differed amongst themselves, bore generally a nearer resemblance to one another than to those of another branch. By this dispersion bounds were set to the spread of idolatry and vice, and to wicked projects of all kinds ; and men were made checks upon each other, so as to prevent too great human combination, which would probably have proved unfavourable to the cause of religion, as it was likely to have become in the case of Babel (chap. xi.).
From these words some gather that this genealogical table
198	• NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. X.
was drawn up on the threefold principle of considering country, language, and actual descent. But it is very doubtful whether, on the whole, it will bear the test in one out of the three, viz. language. Accordingly, though repeated in ver. 31, we find it omitted in ver. 32, which contains the general summary.
Perhaps, on the whole, the descendants of Ham were first a people who overran certain parts of South Arabia, and certain parts of Asia, as for instance Susiana and Mesopotamia, &c., but who principally migrated into Africa, and peopled it, occupying probably first the North-west coast, in which they founded the Egyptian empire, and from thence spread themselves on the one side into Nubia and Abyssinia, &c., and afterwards from Abyssinia back again to Egypt (see Jahn's Heb. Com. sec. 3. Bk. 1, and Heeren, Vol. 1. p. 412. Oxford, 1833) ; and thence, perhaps, across the interior around the Lake Tchad, while another branch took the line along the North coast through Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco. And the Guinea coast was either peopled from thence, or from the dwellers around the lake Tchad. The Hottentots occupied originally most of South Africa, and were descendants of Ham ; and the Kafirs were either descendants of Ham, their language being somewhat similar to that of the Hottentots and other African tribes, or else they were a Shemitic race, who found their way at a later period to the Natal coast, and gradually spread themselves into the interior ; another branch of Ham's descendants seem to have found their way into the Persian Gulf ; while another small branch penetrated westward to Crete, perhaps ; and a third occupied the Phoenician territory, and founded Sidon, which afterwards gave birth to Tyre, and also the country round about Jerusalem or Jebus, and the whole Canaanitish territory. The author submits this brief summary of Ham's descendants and their primeval settlements with all diffidence. Much of it must necessarily be hypothetical at present. Perhaps the present expedition of Drs Barth and Vogel, to the carrying out of which the late Dr Over weg sacrificed his valuable life, will lead to some important discoveries relating to the languages, manners, customs, and traditions of central Africa, which may throw light on this hitherto dark subject.
Some consider India also to have been peopled by Ham's descendants, and perhaps there exists strong evidence that Egypt and India were originally derivable from the same source. If so,
CH. X.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	199
India must have come from Cush ; perhaps through Raamah ? Raamah is a Sanskrit name of the hero of the Ramayana. He was sixty-third in the solar race or genealogy of the Brahmins. Robertson (in his History of India, sec. 1) mentions Sesostris as the first person under whom the Egyptians had intercourse with India. He thinks that the Phoenician intercourse with India was early and considerable ; and that after them the Jews, in the time of Solomon, promoted it also. But all Dr Robertson's accounts, which are gathered principally from Diodorus Siculus and Strabo, imply of course the previous existence of a thriving population in India. The aborigines of India, who now occupy a very small portion of that peninsula, consist of numerous barbarous tribes, who live in the mountainous and other inaccessible
tracts.	These;' says Dr Pritchard, on account of differences in
religion and physical characters, are referrible to different stems' (Vol. Iv. ch. 10, paragraph 2).
Dr Pritchard thinks that there is no reason to doubt that Sanskrit was once universally spoken in India. If so, those who spoke Sanskrit, or, in other words, all India, at first might have been descendants of Raamah. Dr Pritchard also thinks that the Sanskrit was derived originally from some primazval tongue. He refers however (Vol. iv. p. 244, &c.) all India, in its present state, to three classes of nations ; first, the Arians, who spoke Sanskrit, from whom he says that the Brahmins came. But this would seem to make the Brahmins of Shemitic origin ; secondly, the inhabitants of the Dekkan or southern division, who spoke the dialects akin to the Tamul, Telugu, and Kamatacha languages ; thirdly, the aboriginal mountaineers, mentioned above.
Sir W. Jones thought that a race of negroes were once spread through India, because the early sculpture and architecture of India was like the African, and because the mountaineers of Bengal were like the Abyssinians, and because the Hindoo gods in the Cave of Elephanta have African features. Dr Pritchard disagrees with this (1) because the evidence of history is against it ; (2) because the aborigines of the Himalayas have not the peculiar traits of the African ; (3) the figures probably had the Siamese physiognomy, not the African. He concludes by observing, that all colours may be found among the natives of India, and great varieties of physical type. On the whole, then, that there existed some very early connexion between the Hamites
200	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. X.
and a part, if not all, of the aborigines of India, is, I think, evident.
Ver. 21. This separation of Eber's name from all the family of Shem was an honourable distinction.
Ver. 22. The children of Shem—Elam. (Dan. viii. 2 ; Isaiah xxi. 2). He settled in Elymais, or S. Persia (Dan. viii. 2), a part of Susiana or Khusistan. The Medes conquered Elymais (Ezek. xxxii. 24 ; Jer. xlix. 34). Afterwards the Medes and Persians are always thentioned together. The ancient Iran, or old Persian kingdom, was probably contemporary with the ancient Ariana or the old Median kingdom, though in many respects quite distinct. They perhaps spoke the Zend language, (Pritchard, Vol. iv. pp. 22-24, &c.) which was a sister language to the parent of the Sanskrit, the language of the Vedas, according to Mr Burnouf'. Col. Rawlinson, however, doubts this altogether (Vol. x. Asiat. Jour. Pt. i. p.51). In the time of the Achemenithe they spoke the language of the cuneiform inscriptions, which was a later dialect of the Zend, and perhaps the original Zend had become a learned language merely. After this the Pahlevi was formed from the Zend and the Syrian, and was generally used in the reigns of the Sassanidm. Col. Rawlinson thinks that the Elymean cuneiform writing was so different from the Babylonian and Assyrian, as to be entitled to an independent rank2. He sees in the orthographical peculiarity of the mutual exchange of the letters n and 1 in writing, a connexion between the Scythic (Ja-petic) and the Semitic races 3. The cuneiform' pronouns also he considers to form a connecting link between the Semitic and Scythic dialects. Rosenmiiller says that the writers of Scripture (Bib. Geog. ch. 6.) comprehend under the name of Elam or Susiana the country of the Persians generally. Elam or Susiana appears to have been an independent kingdom in Abraham's time (Gen. xiv. 1) of which Chedorlaomer was king. In Eze-kiel's time it was alluded to as a powerful city (xxxiii. 24).
Asshur. (2 Kings xv. 19, 29 ; Isaiah x. 5, &c.). The most ancient king of Assyria was said to be Zames or Shem. He was worshipped by the Assyrians as their god of war.
1 Affinite du Zend aux les dialectes Germaniques, par E. Burnouf, Nouv. Journal Asiatique, Tom. ix.
2 Asiatic Journal, Vol. x. Part 1, p. 52.
3 Ibidem, p. 34.	4 lbidem, p. 35.
,CH. X.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	201
Arphaxad. (Luke iii. 36). Arphaxad branched out through his grandson Eber, into Peleg and Joktan. Peleg remained in Chaldea. Terah was his great great grandson, whom we find in Ur of the Chaldees, in the eleventh chapter of Genesis and 31st verse. Faber thinks that Joktan gave birth to the great feast of the Hindus. Rosenmuller thinks that he peopled the northern part of Assyria (Arrapachitis).
Lud. Bochart has shewn his descendants to be the Ethiopians. He is thought by some to be the father of the Lydians of Asia Minor. The Arabian tribe of Tasru were his descendants. (Sale's Koran, Prelim. Diss. p. 6, sec. 1).
Aram, from which perhaps Armenia took its name. Mesopotamia was called by the Hebrews Aram-Naharaim, or Padan-Aram. The early name of the Syrians was Arammans. This race apparently exist now in the mountain-heights of Kurdistan, where they are much persecuted by their fierce and warlike neighbours the Kurds. Dr Grant identifies them with the lost tribes of Israel. He argued that they were so, from the universal tradition which he supposed to exist among them in Assyria and Media, to this effect, and to the effect that they had come from Palestine. He argued also from the country which they now inhabit being that to which the lost tribes were carried captive (Hazor and Habor of the Medes), in addition to the absence of any evidence as to their subsequent removal from that part. He also thought that the internal evidence of their possessing such an origin was strong ; as arising from their language which he said was immediately derived from the Syriac or language of Palestine ; from their observance of much of the Jewish ritual, while yet they have always been isolated from the Jews ; from their similarity of physiognomy with the Jews ; from their form of government so akin to the theocratic ; from their hatred of the Jews, which he considers to be a fulfilment of Zech. xi. 14 ; from their Hebrew shepherd-life ; and from several other characteristics. (Vide Grant's History of the Nestorians, passim.) Dr Pritchard, however, pronounces them genuine Syrian and not Hebrew tribes. (Vol. iv. p. 571).
Ver. 23. And the sons of Aram ; Uz. Uz was the builder of Damascus. (Vide Poole's Synopsis). Ad was the son of Uz, from whom the Arabian tribe of Ad were descended. (Sale's Koran, Prelim. Diss. p. 4, sect. 1). Some, however, make Ad,
202	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII. X.
the son of Amalek, the son of Ham. Shedad, the grandson of Uz, built the garden of Irem, mentioned in Koran, ch. 89.
Hul, or Chul. His posterity, Ed wards thinks, inhabited principally the greater Armenia, where we find the names of several places beginning with the radicals of Chul. Perhaps the inhabitants of Ccelo-Syria. (Rosenmfiller).
Gether, some think, seated himself on the eastern borders of Armenia, where Ptolemy mentions a city formerly called Getara-, and a river called Getras. Calmet thinks him the father of the Itureans. Gether had a son Thomud, who was the head of an Arabian tribe. (Sale's Koran, Prelim. Diss. sec. 1, p. 5).
Mash, who inhabited,' says Adam Clarke, Mount Masius, in Mesopotamia, and from whom the river Mazeca, which has its source in that mountain, takes its name.'
Ver. 24. Salah. It was the opinion of Eustathius, Anti-ochenus, and Eusebius, that Salah seated himself in Susiana. Sale thinks that this was not the prophet Salah of the Arabians, as M. D'Herbelot imagines ; but he agrees with Bochart, who thinks Phaleg was the prophet Salah. (Sale's Prelim. Diss. p. 6, sect. 1):
Eber, especially mentioned ver. 21, because on him was the blessing of Shem. He is thought to have been the prophet Hud of the Arabian traditions, who was sent to preach to the tribe of Ad. (Sale's Koran, Prelim. Diss. sect. 1, p. 5).
Ver. 25. Peleg. Some suppose the division to which reference is here made, to be a natural geological convulsion which occurred in his days. Others have referred it to the dispersion mentioned in this chapter. Others, to the dispersion of Babel.
Joktan, ancestor of the following Arabian tribes—Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerach, Hadoram, Usal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, Jobab. The other Arabians were, according to their historians, derived from Adnam descended from Ishmael. (Vide Sale's Koran, Prelim. Diss.). The posterity of Joktan or Kahtan they call Arab-el-Ariba, (the genuine Arab), and the posterity of Adnam, Arab-el-Mosteraba (the naturalized Arab).
Arabia was originally inhabited by Canaanites, called by Arabian writers Amalekites. On Abram's arrival there, we read (Gen. xii. 6 ; xiii. 7-18), that the Canaanite was then in the
CH. X.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	203
land.; they are enumerated among the Amalekites who dwelt in
Arabia Petra. (Numb. xiii. 29).
Ver. 27. Almodad. Arabic writers speak of a tribe
joy: ji perhaps the same.
Sheleph. The Selapenes in Nedj or Tahama. (Rosenmiiller). Hazarmaveth. In Greek Sarmoth. They dwelt perhaps in Sarmatia.
Ver. 27. Hadoram. 1 Chron. i. 21, LXX. Kaoupag. Uzal. The inhabitants of Sanaa in S. Arabia. (Rosen-muller).
Diklah.
Ver. 28. Obal. Ebal (Samaritan Version). A district of Idumea. Gen. xxvi. 33.
Abimael. Bochart (Pheleg , sect. 2, p. 24) understands it to mean the father (IN) of Mael.' He refers to Mali, a city of Arabia Thurifera.
Sheba.
Ver. 29. Ophir. The inhabitants of El-Ophir in Oman. Rosenmiiller.
Havilah. The inhabitants of Chaulan in S. Arabia. (Rosen-muller).
Jobab. The Jobabites on the gulph of Salachitis. (Rosen-muller). This is probably the same name with Job (V), the reduplicative Dagesch being omitted : vide note on Gen. xxxviii. 33.
Ver. 30. Mesha. This is supposed by some to be Mecca. The name is not unknown to the Arabians. It is supposed to be taken from one of Ishmael's sons (Gen. xxv. 14). Vide Sale's Koran, Prelim. Diss. sect. 2.
It has been objected to the received chronological system, that the phmnomena of variety in the human species must have taken a longer period for their gradual formation than the 4004 years here allowed to them. To this it might be answered that the text of the LXX. allows some centuries more than the Hebrew, and the Samaritan differs from both, and that numbers are often expressed by a single letter, which might easily have been changed or mistaken in the MS. Dr Pritchard 1, however, surmises that as the Holy Scripture was not intended for a chronological manual, and as it appears to be now generally allowed to
Physical History of Mankind, Vol. v. pp. 555-570, notes.
204	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. X.
have been composed by Moses, writing under the guidance of inspiration, from certain documents handed down to his time : [as, for instance, the cosmogomy (Gen. i. 1, 2, 3) ; the Toldoth Shemaim re Haaretz (Gen. ii. 4 ; iii. 24) ; the history of Cain and his descendants ; the Sepher Toldoth Adam, or genealogy down to Noah ; Toldoth Noah (Gen. vi. 9 ; ix. 29) ; Toldoth Beni Noah ; History of Babel, &c., a fragment (Gen. xi. 1-9); Toldoth Beni Shem (Gen. xi. 10-26) ; Toldoth Terah (Gen. xi. 27, to end) ; Toldoth Jacob (Gen. xxxvii.)], that we are at liberty to suppose that the genealogies contained in the records from which the book of Genesis was compiled were not complete, but that it, according to custom, omitted some
generations, and only inserted those worthy of note.	He
says that St Matthew in the same manner has omitted several generations'. Eichhorn quotes similar omissions in the genealogies of the Arabians. There was, Dr Pritchard thinks, no incorrectness in genealogies so drawn up, since they were customary, and since chronology was not the aim of the writer, but merely to trace lineal descent, and to particularize certain individuals in the line, who stood out in bold relief from the rest, on special accounts. If this supposition be received it will certainly obviate many difficulties, and reconcile many apparent discrepancies. Another believer in revelation makes the following remark :
Whosoever,' says the Chevalier Bunsen.2,-' adopts as a principle that chronology is a matter of revelation is precluded from giving effect to any doubt that may cross his path, as involving a virtual abandonment of his faith in revelation. He must be prepared not only to deny the existence of contradictory statements, but to fill up chasms however irreconcileable the former may appear, by any aid of philology or history, however unfathomable the latter.' One would hope that this was not quite a necessary consequence, for a man might admit the darkness on one side of scripture to be very great, and yet trust that this will one day be made bright perchance like the other very luminous sides. He might consider the analogous difficulties in natural religion
1 In Matthew i. 8, three princes are omitted who probably belonged to the house of Ahab. In Isaiah xxxix. 7, men are said to have been begotten by those several generations from them.
2 Egypt's Place in Universal History, Vol. I. Book I. Sec. 2, p. 161.
CH. x.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	205
far geater than any that he meets with from chronology, or any other branch of science as applied to revelation. He might remember the difficulties existing in all nature, even apart from the religion of nature ; and when, for instance, he had long been endeavouring in vain to trace out the connecting link between mind and matter, he might then return to the study of revelation under the conviction that all knowledge abounds with difficulties to the man who can look deeper than the surface ; while his faith in revelation might remain unshaken. To the man who has found the word of God in himself a germ of immortal life, of graphic truth, and of renovating power ; to the man who has read in it the working of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of pious men of old, and seen reflected in its details, as in a mirror, his own spiritual conflicts ; to the man who has appreciated, even in part, the dense mass of choral efforts of praise with which it abounds, and the full bursts of burdened hearts in prayer, both of which have once reached the Almighty's throne, and then bounded back in glorious echoes to enlighten and to cheer the souls of future generations on their heavenward way, such minor difficulties will not appear to affect his faith in Scripture on the whole. To the man who traces throughout its narratives, in the words of the poet,
.	tstep&-on the sand of time,
Foots Nslich perchance another, Wandering o'er life's solemn main, Some forlorn and shipwrecked brother Seeing, may take heart again;
to the man who is conscious that in its spiritual archives are to be found an expression for every deep need of the soul, in every possible phase of its existence, in this probationary state, from the first feeble sigh of the penitent to the highest aspiration which a seraph could utter, from every stage of the transition, from dark settled despair to brilliant hope, and from a state of degradation in which every sin celebrated its wild orgies there, to a state of purity the highest to which man can by God's grace can ever attain ; objections derived from such sources will be more than counterbalanced. To the man whom it has enabled to realize the deceitfulness of his own pathology, and to institute a searching analysis of those emotions, which, like the colours of the prism, often so shade into each other that human ingenuity
206	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. X.
of itself cannot define their individual limits, and which baffle mere metaphysical acumen, Scripture will carry its own witness not to be gainsaid. To the man who has found in its pages a source of consolation suited to the exigency of every spiritual case which can possibly arise, dictated by that wisdom which perfectly understands it, that love which perfectly sympathizes with it, and that power which can controul all the occurrences in the natural and moral worlds, and make them instrumental to its growth in grace. To such a man, though one particular branch of science may interpose what may perhaps be called its temporary interdict, though human learning in one quarter may for the present fulminate its ban, yet will the immutable veracity of Holy Scripture in moral truths remain untouched, and the co-ordinate existence of its truths with The Eternal himself, continue a precious fact. Such a mind will soar above the temporary triumphs (if triumphs they be) of the infidel, founded on the fluctuating scintillations of sciences yet in their embryo state, and he will await the time when that which is perfect is come, and that which is in part shall be done away ;' when the chasing away of dark clouds which begirt the finite horizon of earthly knowledge will be effected for ever, feeling, meanwhile, humbly confident that
though heaven and earth shall pass away, God's words,' in all their moral integrity, ' will not pass away.' And therefore we would hope that the conclusion at which this very able and learned writer seems to arrive in this sentence is not a necessary one. Still, however, it cannot be doubted that the solution of the case offered by Dr Pritchard appears to be a fair one ; although it would appear—if there be any truth in the foregoing remarks—that the refusal to acquiesce in it does neither involve, on the one hand, the virtual abandonment of faith in revelation ; nor, on the other hand, the falseheartedness to deny what at present may appear to be facts, nor else the ability to fill up chasms as yet unfathomed.
With regard to the difficulty raised by Michaelis on the strength of the computations of Euler and Suessmilch, as to the increase of population after the flood being inadequate to the foundation of so many and such remote states, allowing them to be of small extent, a solution may be found in Jahn's History of the Hebrew Commonwealth (Book 1. sect. iii. p. 6. Edit. 1840). He suggests, first, the different rate of increase then and at the
CH. X.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	207
present time, as is evident from the Scripture records ; secondly, that in the enumeration of the family of Noah, as well as of Jacob (chap. xlvi. 8-27) the servants are omitted. But this objection may be pronounced altogether frivolous, independently of its admitting of these two answers, because it is highly probable that those remote states at first consisted of not more than two or three families, at the outside.
Perhaps this genealogy, which is the most ancient ethnographical document in our possession,—although it was sufficiently perfect for the purpose for which it was intended, namely, the instruction of the Israelites with regard to all nations with whom they either were at that time, or would be hereafter connected, either as enemies or as friends—yet was by no means a complete one of all the nations on the earth ; since many important branches would appear not to be noticed in it at all. Those races of which no notice appears to be taken, are the Sclavo-nians, the Lithuanians, the Jotuns, Tchudes, and Ougres, the German tribes, the American aborigines (who probably came from the N. E. of Asia), the Malayo-Polynesian races, the natives of the Micronesian Archipelago, the natives of Madagascar, the black men of Oceanica, the inhabitants of Australia, the Hyperborean Asiatics (some of whom seem plainly connected with the Mexican and other American tribes), the Indians, the Korians, Japanese, and Chinese; (all these being physically referrible to the same type). What number of them (if any) existed in the time of Moses as distinct species of mankind it is almost impossible now to affirm. But that some few of them did, seems more that probable. Some would explain these omissions in the sacred genealogy (if omissions they be) by supposing that those races came from a different stock ; but this is not at all a necessary supposition, for it was not the object of Moses to construct an universal genealogy of the human race. And those, moreover, who have dived deepest into the intricate subject of Ethnology, and have brought up the richest hidden treasures, appear to be con-sentaneous in the opinion that all mankind are referrible to one common stock. The student who wishes to investigate this subject, should start independently of the guidance of Moses, (if possible) and retrace his steps from the nations in their present scattered state, by philological and physical enquiries, and by historical and philosophical processes, both ethnographical and
208	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII. X.
analogical, up to the primeval age. In his philological research he will do wisely to attach more importance to grammatical construction, and to similarity of idiom, than to mere approximation of words, as establishing a basis of connexion between different languages, and therefore between the nations who spoke them ; the former features of a language being more permanent than the latter, and therefore a better test of its origin. The student should also be guided in his enquiries more by the internal affinity of manners, customs, religion, traditions, language, and even modes of writing, both phonetic and ideagraphic, than by mere vague historical accounts, handed down through other nations, of migrations from time to time occurring; still less should he allow himself to be led astray, as many have been, by a mere identity or even likeness of names of places. At any rate he should always, when it is possible, bring all these different methods to bear upon a point, like rays of light converging towards a centre, mutually correcting each other's conclusions. With regard to arguments drawn from language there is one caution well brought forward by Humboldt': Positive ethnographical studies, based on a thorough knowledge of history, teach us that much caution should be applied in entering into these comparisons of nations, and of the languages employed by them at certain epochs. Subjection, long association, the influence of a foreign religion, the blending of races even when only including a small number of the more influential and cultivated of the immigrating tribes, have produced in both continents similarly recurring phenomena; as for instance, in introducing totally different families of languages amongst one and the same race, and idioms having one common root amongst nations of the most different origin. Great Asiatic conquerors have exercised the most powerful influence on phenomena of this kind.' While on the other hand the Baron well brings out the use of philological enquiries in the following words : Languages as intellectual creations of man, and as closely interwoven with the development of mind, are, independently of the national form which they exhibit, of the greatest importance in the recognition of similarities or differences in races. This importance is especially owing to the clue which a community of
1 Cosmos, Vol. 1. pp. 366, 367.
I
x.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	209
descent affords in treading that mysterious labyrinth in which the connexion of physical powers, and intellectual forces, manifests itself in a thousand different forms.' There is a fine passage by the Chevalier Bunsen which bears upon the process of thus illustrating Scripture by ethnological enquiries, which the student
would do well to remember.	Historical faith,' says this philo-
sophical writer, and historical science have the same object in view, but they start from opposite points. In the contemplation of human history, faith begins as the sacred books do, with the Divine origin of things, and starting from the great facts of creation and the unity of the human race, considers the events handed down principally in their connexion with that divine origin. The stronger and the more pure this faith is, the more free and independent will be the position it occupies in regard to the question, really unimportant, if viewed from that position concerning the external shell of the divine kernel. This question is whether the external history, related in the sacred books, be externally complete, and capable of chronological arrangement. Science on the other hand ascends from the clear historical periods to the dark ages. Her task is to sail up the stream of universal history, and she fulfils it in the hope of being able to hold out the hand to faith who sits at the source, and on her part sees science patiently and joyfully plodding along her thorny path. For faith alone appreciates the importance of that path, because faith alone perceives the goal. To her it is immaterial whether science discover truth in a spirit of scepticism or of belief, and truth has been really found by both courses, but never by dishonesty or sloth':
CHAPTER XI.
Ver. 1. And the whole earth was of one language and of
one speech. nmt	one lip.' trri:IN	one
set of words.'
THERE have been numerous surmises as to what was the original language. It will not be necessary to enter into all
1 Egypt's place in Universal History, p. 164, Vol. 1. Bk. T. sect. 3.
14
210	NOTES ON GENESIS.
these, as the discussion of this subject, were one only to glance at the different arguments adduced in favour of each language, would
of itself fill a very large volume. These different hypotheses
have been alluded to in p. 72. It does not seem at all probable that we have as yet arrived at a knowledge of the primmval
language, unless indeed the language of the Sinaitic monuments
deciphered by Mr Forster be it. Dr Pickering (The Races of Man, ch. xvi. p. 290, Bohn's Edition) makes the following strik-
ing remark : If the human family has had a central origin, and has gradually and regularly diffused itself, followed by the principal inventions and discoveries, the history of man would then be inscribed on the globe itself, and each new revolution obliterating more or less of the preceding, his primitive condition should be found at the farthest remove from the geographic centre : as, in the case of a pebble dropped into the water, the earliest wave keeps most distant from the point of origin.' This remark appears to apply equally with regard to languages. If therefore there be any truth in it, it would lead us to expect to find the greatest approximation to the primitive language at the point furthest removed from the Caucasus, taking that to be the cradle of the human race.
Ver. 2. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar.
All history teaches us that a spirit of emigration has characterized man from the earliest ages, and even now actuates him, proceeding partly perhaps from a love of novelty and change of scene, as well as from necessity. As they journeyed. Who journeyed ? Not, it would seem, all the world,' mentioned in the preceding verse ; but the followers of Nimrod, who were going out, as the margin of the 10th verse of the 10th chapter tells us, to Assyria.
Ver. 3. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
The very early use of burnt brick is not unworthy of attention. Mr Layard, in describing Nineveh, says, The upper part of the walls was of sun-burnt bricks. In the rubbish filling up the chamber were discovered numerous baked bricks, bearing the name of the Koyungik king ' (Nineveh, ch. v. p. 103).
These' (public buildings), says Sir G. Wilkinson, ' were prin-
XI.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	211
cipally constructed of crude brick ; and that such materials were commonly used in Egypt, we have sufficient proof from the walls and other buildings of great size and solidity found in various parts of the country, many of which are of a very early period ' (Ancient Egyptians, Vol. i. ch. ii. p. 50). These bricks from Khorsabad and Nimroud were covered with legends in the Assyrian character. At Babylon they contain legends of from three lines to seven, formed in the centre of a parallelogram with a margin (Rawlinson, Cuneiform-writing, Asiatic Journal, Pt. i. p. 26). Perhaps those Babel-builders gave on each brick, or each brick of this tower, some early history of their times in which they were the principal heroes, as would not seem unlikely from the words, let us make us a name' (ver. 4). A brick-kiln is first mentioned in 2 Sam. xii. 31.
And slime had they for snorter. Niebuhr tells us, that if the Babylonians had used lime for a cement, we should have found many more remains of their edifices at the present day. The pits from which the bitumen was probably brought for building purposes exist to this day, at about four days' journey northwest of Baghdad, on the western bank of the river (Rosenmiiller, Bib. Geog. ch. viii. p. 62, note 23).
Ver. 4. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven ; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
From this verse we learn that the work of these ibuilders was twofold ; first, to build a city, or settlement (Ili), which
word is used in Gen. iv. 17 ; xxiv. 10, &c., and is put for a walled city, Lev. xxv. 19 ; and, secondly, to build a tower
t7`=, root	he was great, or grew great.'
T •
Whose top may reach unto heaven. Some consider this as only an oriental mode of expression, equivalent to, whose top shall be very high.' These refer to Deut. ix. 1, and i. 28, as similar cases. Others, however, translate it, whose top shall be consecrated to the heavens.' In support of this rendering they refer to the testimony of the earliest historians and travellers, who assure us that the tower of Babel was an idol-temple, dedicated to the Sun, and had an altar on the top of it (Herodotus, Lib. 1. c. 181, 183). The pyramids of Egypt also, built by Ham's de-
212	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII.
scendants, were meant for temples, as well as for sepulchres (vide Owen's Boyle Lecture, Sermon VII. p. 169, Vol. 1.).
What was the object of these Babel-builders has been much discussed. Some have supposed that they did it in order to save themselves in case of another flood destroying the world, by climbing up to heaven, and that the wickedness of the design consisted in the unbelief thus displayed in God's promise not to destroy the world any more in this manner, which He had made to Noah ; and in the vain imagination, that if this were the Almighty's intention, it might thus be frustrated by man. But if this had been the object of the Babel-builders, they would surely never have chosen a plain to build their tower on ; but some mountain-top, or at least an elevated piece of table-land ; and least of all a plain situated between two rivers, and exposed to continual inundations. Others have understood that it was built merely with the object of perpetuating their fame, and of making themselves a name.' But surely there was no great harm in making themselves, or their families, a name. Ambition, as long as it is kept within due bounds, and does not make use of bad means to attain its ends, is at least harmless, and in some cases actually laudable. Many Old Testament saints were ambitious. At any rate there could be nothing in the intent which could call down the malediction of heaven in so awful a manner as the context informs us that it did descend upon these wretched men. Others, considering that very early testimony credible, which informs us that Nimrod introduced the worship of fire, and the use of magical arts among the Chaldeans, Persians, and Assyrians, think that Nimrod aimed, in the first place, at seizing large territories, and then afterwards at perpetuating his fame by giving laws and religion to all his conquered subjects, suppose that be built this tower as a great idol-temple, whose top was consecrated to the heavens or heavenly bodies, in order that it might stand a monument of his fame in opposition to God's fame, when he had obliterated the name and worship of Jehovah from the face of the earth. These imagine, therefore, that it was not mere ambition in Nimrod which called down the vengeance of the Almighty ; but the expiring struggles of the Church in the grasp of a powerful enemy which called forth God's arm in her defence. If so, what the Babel-builders said, Let us make us a name,' might be only the artful plea used by this daring man, in order
XI.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	213
to incite his subjects to embark in the perilous adventure ; it was the gilding which covered over the real motive, viz. the triumph of idolatry over the worship of the one true God. On this supposition it must be confessed that the wisdom and justice of God stand out in bold relief in the sequel.
Ver. 5. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
This title, the sons of men,' is often antithetically contrasted with the sons of God' in scripture. The former generally meaning the wicked,' and the latter the godly.' Gen. vi. 2, 4 ; iv. 26 ; Job i. 6 ; ii. 1.
Ver. 6. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language ; and this they begin to do : and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Brian Walton, speaking of language, remarks as follows Undo est quod sermo sit societatis humanm vinculum, sine quo nullum inter homines commercium institui, nullum vita solamen haberi possit : immo mallet quisque, ut scripsit Augustinus de Civitate Dei, xix. 7, " Cum cane suo versari, quam cum homine ignotm lingum." '
The people is one. This seems to point out the universal monarchy which Nimrod had been trying to establish. There exists, we are told, an ancient tradition among the Jews that Nimrod published a decree, that men should everywhere renounce the religion of Shem, and embrace his institutes' (Jerusalem Targum on Gen. x. 9). Hcw different this from the decree which afterwards went forth from this very spot, commanding all people, and nations, and languages to honour the God of Shem's descendants, and to confess that he alone is the living God, and stedfast for ever ; and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed !' (Dan. vi. 26, 27). How mutable are human sentiments ! Here we see opinions idolized in one age, anathematized in another !
Union is the secret of strength ; and at no time was God's Church in more imminent danger of being overwhelmed by a wicked and idolatrous world than when unity of purpose directed the attacks of her enemy. And how did the Almighty appear in defence of his Church ? How did he check the evil designs of her enemies ? The next verse informs us.
214	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CII.
Ver. 7. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Go to, let us go down and confound their language. 'Verba verb illa,' says Brian Walton, hoc tantbm significant Deum non temere sed mature consilio, sapienter et juste, ut omnia judicia sua, sic hoc de linguarum confusione inflixisse ' (Walton's Polyglott, Prolegonema, § 1, Vol. i. p. 18. Edidit Wrangham). He also tells us (p. 17), Confusionem linguarum ab ipsis hominibus fuisse nemo facile crediderit. Nam (ut arguit Thes: Ambrosius, de causis mutationis linguarum) nulla reddi pot est causa sufficiens, cur vel-lent homines sermonem per tot swcula usitatum et ad vitae ac negotiorum communionem necessarium mutare, et sese tanto bene-ficio privare : nec si voluissent in tot linguas et idiomata sponte consentire potuissent ut alii Babylonicam, alii Ionicam, alii Egyp-tiacam, &c. eligerent.' The expression used here, Let us go down,' is similar with Let us make man,' vide p. 25. And how does the aptness of the method pursued in this instance shew the wisdom of its Author ! What plan could have been more certain to discomfit God's enemies, and to frustrate their designs, than that of cutting off their communication with each other, and thus destroying their cooperation in a work which could only be effected by their united energies, if effected at all ? Surely idolatry never had a more complete overthrow than in the present instance, or the worship of Jehovah a grander triumph. The Flood, as an instance of God's interference in behalf of his Church, was terrible ; but then it was a physical overthrow. Of the same kind, too, was the case of Elijah on Mount Carmel, when by fire from heaven the water around the sacrifice was licked up in the trenches, and the enemies of God were discomfited. Such, too, was the volcanic shower which rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the doomed cities. Such was the earthquake which swallowed up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. But this was a moral intervention. Moral power was opposed to physical. And, consequently, it was a grander intervention. Whenever there is a contest between physical and moral agency, the latter is sure to win the victory, even supposing that they were both wielded by man. But here we have the one raised by the impotency of man, the other descending by the power of the Almighty. The physical structure is human ; the arm that overthrows it is Divine. Who then can wonder at the result ?
XI.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	215.
But another purpose is suggested of this occurrence by Bishop Shuttleworth, who says, ' If we take into consideration the known instinctive attachment of mankind to their native soil, their tendency to congregate together in large communities, and the destructive feuds which would arise in an overcrowded population, where each person would be rather disposed to expel his neighbour at any cost than to remove the inconvenient pressure by his own voluntary emigration, we can scarcely imagine any means so well adapted to counteract what at that particular period of the world would have operated as a mischievous propensity, and to promote a voluntary colonization in other districts without either animosity or bloodshed, as the introduction of the momentary inconvenience resulting from the misapprehension of each others' language.'
Ver. 8. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth : and they left off to build the city. The city,' i. e. the capital of Nimrod's empire, of which their idol temple formed only a part. Thus was God's design thoroughly carried out ; His church protected, His enemies overthrown, and their designs defeated, by the power and wisdom of the Almighty. What a standing lesson was this for the wicked, of the uselessness of laying plans for the overthrow of God's Church ! And yet how little was it subsequently attended to by Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon, those proud idolatrous capitals. While one object of this dispersion probably was the overthrow of idolatry ; another undoubtedly was the repeopling of the earth after the deluge. How do all the divine plans harmonize with each other ! The punishment of these men was of use to the world ! just as the later casting off of the Jews was to the benefit of the Gentiles (Rom. ix. 30 ; xi. 15).
Ver. 9. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth.
In every age,' says Professor Pareau (Principles of Interpretation, Vol. ii. part 3. sec. 1. chap 3. § 4, p. 104), it was customary among the Hebrews to derive names from events, the memory of which they might, by their signification, propagate to posterity and render perennial. And as this custom from its very nature breathes the greatest simplicity, such as existed in the primordial state of the human race, and in consequence seems to have remained in the nation long the preserver in many other
216	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH.
cases of that primaeval simplicity ; it is quite improper to seek for any other cause of the name imposed on Babel, except that assigned in express words in Gen. xi. 9. Neither is the assumption in itself probable that the name principally gave rise to the fictitious history ; since rather, according to the custom of remote antiquity, a custom too constantly observed in succeeding ages, the name itself must have bad some preceding historical cause.' Nimrod, and those weak tools of his ambition, had proposed to
make themselves a name.' Now, harmless as this project might have been, if followed within due bounds and unconnected with base ends, considered as a mere airy scheme of ambition, apart from any connexion with idolatry, yet it met with the very reverse of what they had hoped for. Instead of making a name at which all posterity should tremble, they made a name which should excite the scorn of all posterity—a name which instead of commemorating their achievements, to this very day exists as a lasting monument of their defeat.
With regard to what took place on this occasion there exist two opinions ; the first is, that the differences existing between languages at the present day are principally attributable to the event related in this chapter. In support of this opinion Dr Wiseman urges as follows : In different languages there have been found many affinities in languages serving to class them into families, and these have been seen existing in the very character and essence of each language, so that none of them could have existed without these elements wherein their resemblances consist. Now as this excludes all idea of one language having borrowed them from the other, and as they could not have arisen in each by independent processes ; as their radical differences exclude all idea of their being offshoots from one another, we conclude that they were all originally united in one, and that their separation was not caused by any gradual departure, or individual developement, but from some violent, unusual and active force, sufficient alone to account at once for their resemblances and differences' (Wiseman's Lectures on the Connexion between Science and Revealed Religion, pp. 66, 67, lect. 2). This mode of illustration of the Scriptural account seems equally ingenious and true. It affords a striking corroboration of the literal and natural interpretation of the narrative, which represents a sudden disruption happening in the history
XI.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	217
of languages in the very earliest age of the world in which the parent stock was at one stroke shivered into a thousand splinters. On this principle of interpretation we must suppose that God at one stroke made speaking man, into whose mouth he had placed language at first, incapable of uttering those sounds which up to this moment he had been uttering distinctly and perhaps volubly. One way in which this effect might have been accomplished, would be by causing man at the same time to forget partially, but not utterly, his former speech ; and yet to retain part of it, to which part might have been variously added individual new words and phrases, and radical parts of speech. And this would account for the radical differences, and at the same time resemblances, between languages at the present day. A mighty miracle this ! only equalled perhaps by what happened at the day of Pentecost, when the Almighty added to his Apostles the power of utterance of all these different languages at one instant ; for, that the miracle took place on this occasion in the speakers, and not in the hearers, as some suppose, is evident from the distribution of fiery tongues which accompanied it, and not of fiery ears, which would have been a fitter emblem in the latter case. How does this prove Jehovah to be the monarch of mind as well as matter !
For this part of the subject the reader may consult the following works. Le Clerc On Genesis xi. 6 ; Scaliger, Exercita-tiones in Cardanum ; Casaubon, De Linguit Hebraic ii ; Buxtorf, De Linguarum Confusi one, &c. &c. ; the last of which contains very much matter for thought.
There is, however, another opinion, brought forward by Mr Donaldson (in his Cratylus, p. 47), that the confusion of tongues ensued gradually, and was the result of the dispersion, instead of the cause. He appears to view death and dispersion as the two consequences of the fall, and to think that when man fell he was banished from Eden, lest he obviate the first consequence, viz. death, by eating of the tree of life ; and that his descendants were scattered lest they should obviate the other consequence, viz, dispersion, and concentrate their efforts; and that thus, by the operation of secondary causes, the languages became different. But the want of similarity in words, and idioms, and in grammatical construction, and the great diversities between different languages, are all opposed to this view. Others think that as
218	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[cH.
the Babel-builders were Hamites, they alone were punished in the confusion of tongues, and therefore the Shemites retained the primaeval tongue—the Hebrew. But this surely would apply equally to the Japetians. And besides, the Hebrew probably was not the primitive tongue of the Shemites, if the inscriptions on the rocks of Sinai be correctly interpreted by Mr Forster, who thinks that God first imparted the Hebrew language at Sinai in order to insulate the Jews and sever them from other idolatrous nations, alluded to perhaps in Psalm lxxxi. 5, 6 ; Zeph. iii. 7. Dr Pritchard seems to have thought that the primitive tongue was Syro-Arabian.
Coleridge appears to agree in these respects with Mr Donaldson, for he says, They acknowledged a whole beehive of natural gods ; but while they were employed in building a temple consecrated to the material heavens, it pleased divine wisdom to send on them a confusion of lip, accompanied with the usual embitterment of controversy, when all parties are in the wrong, and the grounds of quarrel are equally plausible on all sides. As the modes of error are endless, the hundred forms of polytheism had each its group of partizans who, hostile or alienated, thenceforward formed separate tribes, kept aloof from each other by their ambitious leaders. Hence arose, in the course of a few centuries, the diversity ,of languages, which has sometimes been confounded with the miraculous event that was indeed its first and principal, though remote cause.' (Friend, Vol. III. p. 186, Essay 10).
This Scriptural narrative did not refer to mere differences in dialect, as is evident from the fact that these are mentioned before in chap. x. ver. 5, every one after his tongue ,' and in chap. x. ver. 31, after their tongues.'
Ver. 10. The universal history of mankind ceases at this point, and the history of the Church commences, with only occasional notices of the former. Next to this narrative, in the remaining part of the chapter, we have a genealogy of the Shemites, being the same as in verses 21-25 of the xth chapter, with a few additional particulars inserted, down to Peleg (ver. 19). It there continues the genealogy of Shem's descendants through Peleg down to Abram, instead of through Joktan (his brother) down to Jobab, as in the tenth chapter.
Ver. 31 is strongly opposed to the absurd notion that Abram was a mere wandering Sheik, which some have been found to
XI.]	NOTES ON GENESIS.	219
maintain. Similarly, Gen. xxiv. 4, 10 ; xxviii. 2, 10 ; xxix. 4 ; xxxi. 55. So with regard to Lot, Gen. xiii. 12-18 ; (iii. 18) ; xxxiii. 18, 19 ; xxxiv. 20, 22.
The attentive reader of the narrative contained in this chapter will hardly fail to learn from it two lessons. First, the vanity of all mere earthly things, of all human designs when they are not made subservient to the designs of God. These Babel-builders tried to raise a structure in opposition to the will of the Eternal, and what was the result, but confusion ? They sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind. They piled up, but the Almighty scattered. Nearly 4000 years have elapsed, and those minds so bent on the then present, or else so full of proud ambition and anticipations of an universal monarchy, the fame of which should resound from shore to shore, or else so desirous of defeating heaven, have long ago passed away. And yet everything terrestrial preserves the even tenor of its appointed track, just as if they had never appeared on the scene. While man, the being of to-day, takes just as much all-absorbing interest in the matters of time, as did those beings of yesterday, although he knows that he must soon leave them for ever to his ephemeral successors. He is continually raising airy schemes, moral Babels, to perpetuate himself, but they all prove unsatisfactory in the end. Some found their fame on human wisdom, but this, though it lasts longer than any other perhaps, fails at last. Others seek pleasure, but this only deludes after all ; others again build their fame on their riches, but such fame is notoriously short-lived. Life lasts but one instant in comparison with eternity. It flashes and is gone. How careful then should we be that while we are raising structures for time, we are building for eternity likewise ; that while we seek to make ourselves a name, it is only in subserviency to God, and that in every thing his glory is at the bottom of our motives ; that instead of laying up treasure in earth where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal,' in preference we lay up treasure in heaven, and seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,' ere the mighty oath of the archangel reverberates throughout an awe-stricken universe, when he swears by the heaven and all things that are therein, and by the earth and all things that are therein, and by the sea, and all things that are therein, that time shall be no longer.'
220	NOTES ON GENESIS.	[CH. XI.
fo.z	jelli	ci
`1314i	41-h:C.ri?
1(r)	(r) wl;.‘0Jgf
The second lesson to be learnt from this chapter is the necessity of union on the part of the Christian Church. Her enemies are as powerful, as numerous, and as united now, as they were in the days of Nimrod--for infidelity has made rapid and gigantic strides during the last century. Let her therefore not foolishly underrate their powers, nor occupy a false position of defence herself, nor cease prayerfully to depend upon God's arm when occupying the right one ; for if she does either of these she will certainly be overcome, weakened as she is by faction herself, whilst union pervades and strengthens the ranks of her enemy. But let her rather, in humble dependence on the Divine Being, and distrust of her own endeavours, use constant watchfulness without, and cultivate a spirit of union within, demeaning herself with all prudence, and taking a lesson from the children of this world, who are wiser in their generation than the children of light,' and who when they make war upon her, first of all cultivate a spirit of union amongst themselves.
ti
ey.tt....
	41131:A.	JeJ
41-C1/4.4 14 8}4 J4.1	144.
p. (riv)	(rr)
1 'Do good, 0 man, and account your life as gain before the report is spread that such an one is no more.'—Gulistan, by Sadi, p. 2, Fable 2.
2	Go and sit at ease with your friends
When you see contention among your foes,
But when you see them of one mind
String your bow and place stones upon the ramparts.
Gulistan, p. 217, Counsel. No. 22.
APPENDIX.
PAGE 1, LINE 9.
That it has always been or is now immutable.] That matter, on the contrary, must always have been in the mutable state in which it now is, appears evident from the fact that the whole physical world is made up of opposite forces, described by philosophers as positives and negatives, which are continually acting and reacting upon each other, such as cold and heat, light and darkness, attraction and repulsion, gravity and lightness, cohesion and incohesion, &c.
PAGE 9, LINE 30.
Perhaps, too, the eject of electricity has been somewhat passed over.] Of the effects of electricity and magnetism, I imagine we have as yet attained to but very slender knowledge. Perhaps further information on these points may bring out many facts with reference to the rapid hardening of the strata, and with regard to the generation of great heat around our planet, which at present, from ignorance, we are unable to take into our calculations.
the Craigleith fossil tree.] Several instances of the same kind as the Craigleith fossil tree, Professor Hitchcock constitutes exceptions (Geology and Revelation, p. 20) to the general case, such trees having been probably imbedded at the mouths of rivers, &c. But this remains to be proved. His answer to the objection is only founded on supposition, whereas the objection itself is founded on fact.
PAGE 12, LINE 1.
darkness had overspread the earth,] It is quite possible that the Sun may have become darkened for a period by the increase of spots on its disc, as history seems to say was the case in 45 B. c. in 33 A. D. (Matth. xxvii. 45 ; Luke xxiii. 45), on neither of which occasions was there an eclipse; and, subsequently, light may have been reproduced at the divine command. Other instances of this sort are referred to by Humboldt in the following years, A. D. 358, 360, 409, 536, 567, 626, 733, 807, 840, 934, 1091, 1096, 1206, 1241, 1547 (vide Cosmos, Vol. iv. pp. 381-388). Thus, too, we are informed by our Saviour that it will be again : The sun shall be darkened.
222	APPENDIX.
PAGE 12, LINE 28.
most scientific way of explaining the digiculty,] This explanation, however, will not meet the difficulty if we suppose the days to be natural ones; for it only allows three days for the condensation of this mighty orb, which seems highly improbable. Moreover, the more modern theory is that these nebulT are all resolvable into clusters of stars. Lord Rosse and Sir John Herschel have supported this opinion. According, however, to Humboldt (Cosmos, Vol. Iv. p. 310, &c.) there are yet 3538 nebula, or perhaps 4500, which have not been resolved into clusters of stars. Moreover, `no telescope,' says Humboldt (p. 308, Vol. iv), ' has yet indicated any sidereal character in the vaporous, rotating, and flattened ring of the zodiacal light.' The nebulous theory, it must be allowed, does not quite meet the difficulty suggested in p. 12, if we suppose the days to be natural ones. For it only allows three days for the condensation of this mighty orb, which appears highly improbable. Hensler supposed that these light-beams existed from the first, but could not shine through the dense evaporation arising from the new earth in its moist state. It should be remembered, however, that to admit the nebular hypothesis by no means involves the admission of those inferences which La Place and others seem to have connected with it, as Dr Whewell has clearly shewn in Ch. vii. of his Bridgewater Treatise.
PAGE 15, LINE 24.
prior to distinct light.] Were I inclined to suggest possibilities., I should say that heat and light being intimately connected, there might have been a succession of periods of heat and light, called days, followed by a succession of periods of cold and darkness, called nights, alternately caused by a bringing out of the latent heat and light which existed in the earth, as the effect of electricity, or as the effect of the belchings of a central fire through a thousand volcanos. This warm state might have produced the almost instantaneous growth of plants and vegetation, which it would force, as it were, while it also held the strata in a solution ready to overwhelm them. I do not give this as a correct interpretation of the text, but only as a possible one, about as valuable apparently as many others that I read.
PAGE 15, LINE 38.
allowing time for the formation of the strata,] Sir C. Lyell, however, would not: consider 3600 years at all sufficient time for the formation of many strata. Vide Principles of Geology, and Diary in America, especially the description of Niagara.
APPENDIX,	223
PAGE 20, LINE 33.
luminous atmosphere surrounding it.] The present opinion concerning the sun is, that it is surrounded by three atmospheres: .1st a vaporous envelope, 2ndly a luminous envelope, 3rdly an external cloudly envelope, slightly luminous. Galileo first suggested that the spots belonged to the body of the sun itself. Jean Tarde (A.D. 1612) thought that they were the transits of planets. Cassini (A.D. 1671) enlarged on this. Wilson (A.D. 1769) and Bode (A.D. 1776) seem to have supposed, from their observations on the penumbra, that there was a double stratum of envelope. Sir W. Herschel agreed with Baliani in ascribing the modifying influence on the heat of the sun to the variations which occur in the penumbrle. (Humboldt's Cosmos, p. 362-401).
PAGE 21, LINE 10.
La Place made it 300,000 times less.] Woollaston made it 800,000 times less; Bouger agreed with La Place. The science of Photometry appears to be as yet in its infancy. The moon, of course, has other influences upon the earth ; for instance, on the tides, on atmospheric pressure, and on the dispersion of the clouds around the earth.
PAGE 24, LINE 25.
absence of all human remains previously to the diluvial strata,] It would be wrong, however, to omit to mention that Professor Stuart, Sharon Turner, and others, have brought forward several instances of fossil human remains, said to have been found in the secondary strata (the Breccias and the Jura limestone). Donati and Germar thought that they had found them in Dalmatia, Canobio in calcareous Tufa, near Genoa, Boue in Baden, Razoumorski in Lower Austria, Sterberg at Kostritz in Saxony, Renaux at Dufort, Bernardi near Palermo (Vide Stuart's Philological View of the Modern Doctrines of Geology, p. 66, 67; and Sharon Turner's Sacred History of the World, Vol. I. let. 18.). How far these are established facts, and the testimony which they bear irrefragable, I am not prepared to assert ; but I much doubt them.
PAGE 25, LINE 26.
all speak in the singular.] All the instances quoted of the plural use of the pronoun, as a pluralis majesticus or pluralis excellentice, are of much later date, except Gen. xi. 7, which probably is a parallel case with the text. They are Dan. ii. 36; Ezra iv. 18; 1 Maccabees x. 19, 20 ; xi. 31; xv. 9, and also several passages from the New Testament.
224	APPENDIX.
The following passages' Professor Stuart alleges (Gen. xxix. 27; Num. xxii. 6 ; Cant. i. 4 ; 1 Kings xii. 9 ; 2 Sam. xvi. 20 ; xxiv. 14 ; Job xviii. 2, 3) may be considered as common to the speaker and his friends.' (Hebrew Chrestomathy, p. 119, Part 3. No. 7). And he was an advocate of the pluralir excellentice.
PAGE 25, LINE 37.
archetype of existence.] Man is distinguished from the brute creation by his long and helpless infancy and slow growth, by his being furnished with no natural weapons of offence, in the structure of his body suited to an upright condition, in the formation of his hands, in the articulation of the skull with the spine, in the great development of the cerebral hemispheres of the brain, and in other important respects.
PAGE 26, LINE 11.
Gen. i. 27. Male and female created he them.] Some translate this
A male and a female created he them.' Compare Deut. vii. 14 ;
2 Sam. vi. 19 ; 1 Chron. xviii. 3, &c.
PAGE 31, LINE 34.
one pair.] Amongst those who maintain the unity of the human species are found, in addition to the names of authors already mentioned, those of Linnaeus, Blumenbach, Cuvier, Camper, Laurence, Humboldt, Pritchard,—a host of great scientific names which the opposing theory cannot for a moment pretend to.
PAGE 39, LINE 15.
The LXX. reading,' says Prof. Stuart (Heb. Chres. p. 122. Oxford
Edition),	thAep« Tp ZICTV, and the Samaritan Pentateuch which agrees with it, are evidently the result of some transcriber's fears, lest
working on the seventh day should be attributed to the Creator.'
PAGE 77, LINE 27.
in the opinion of the Church of England,] It would hardly be fair, however, to omit to mention that the Canon Law which is now the law of the land, upon any point on which Statute and Common Law are silent, so far as it was confirmed by 35 Henry VIII. ch. 16, does certainly not make the religious ceremony necessary to the validity of any marriage (Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, pp. 455, 455 a, 455 b, Vol. n.
4- t	e? L e-474-1Z-	•
L/
L.1	_	l	s'	1z, 2 z-
,
t—,7 fr1 L-t-	C_Z"	
	ALL'L	C	t 1"-	"--/z
,
-
APPENDIX.
C r..1-;71":14--
225
Article, Marriage, 9th Edition. Dr Phillimore). But this affords no proof that the reformed Church does not think so ; for there are some things which the Canon Law now enforces, but of which the reformed Church disapproves, although so far as they have not been repealed by subsequent acts of parliament or are overruled by Common Law, she is bound by them. Perhaps this will be altered soon. The author hopes it may.
PAGE 78, LINE 26.
Afterwards proofs thicken as they proceed.] It must be remembered, that there are two ways in which the fathers are useful in elucidating Christian doctrine. The first is in bearing witness that certain doctrines were held in the Church, from, and during the Apostolic times. In this case it becomes a matter of historical evidence, and the value of the testimony depends only upon the sincerity and fitness of the testators, just as it would in the case of heathen testimony. Christianity, it must not be forgotten, professes to be a system of Divine Revelation, which as to the appearance of its facts and the announcement of its doctrines, dates its origin more than eighteen centuries ago. Now, inasmuch as human agency was the instrument of its communication, it is evident that the ordinary evidences of authenticity which guarantee other messages, must also guarantee it. We are wont to argue that its truths find such a response in the unquestionable facts of man's moral nature, that even on this principle alone it has the strongest internal presumptions in favour of its veracity. But whereas the force of this argument must vary, as the moral health of the individuals appealed to varies, it is of the utmost moment that another and a less fluctuating test should be at hand. And this is provided by the fact that every element necessary for historically attesting the truth of any document whatsoever, is found in the historical associations around that of Christianity. The testimonies of enemies, and the collateral illustrations of friends; the pagan sceptic, and the suffering martyr ; the conceding disputant, and the devout apologist, unite in a common confirmation of the Christian scheme, and of the principal doctrines contained in it. This testimony, moreover, is cumulative. It commences with the acts and teaching of the apostles ; it proceeds to the documentary evidence of the Christian Fathers who succeeded them. In regard to the former the irrefragable work of Paley (Evidences of Christianity) has left nothing to be added ; in regard to the latter, the learned and mostly impartial work of Lardner (Credibility of the Gospel History) would furnish materials the most ample. But there is another way in which they may be separately placed in the witness-box, and that is to
226	APPENDIX.
testify to the existence of certain doctrines, in the Church at the time they lived, which were not then considered heresies. Now this is the case in the text in p. 78. This is the sole purpose for which they are summoned into court—to give evidence as to whether marriage was in primitive times considered merely a civil ordinance or a religious one.
The second way in which the fathers may be consulted, is, to see what doctrinal deductions they have made from Scripture. This may be termed inferential testimony; and its value depends upon the comparative superiority possessed by them as critical investigators. In this second way, they are not appealed to in p. 78. Their value in this way has been argued on the one hand by Bossuet (tEuvres, Tom. v.), on the other hand by Barbeyrac (Traite de la Morale des Peres de l'Eglise), and by Simon (Histoire Critique des principaux Commen-tateurs du Nouveau Testament depuis le commencement jusqu'au notre temps, 4'c.); while a medium and judicious view of the matter seems to have been taken between these ultra-disputants by Daille (in his Treatise On the right use of the Fathers). The author himself thinks that they seem to espouse the right cause, who advocate—not a superstitious and overweening deference for the writings of the early Fathers on doctrinal points, simply because they represent the voice of antiquity from a feeling that
" Time consecrates, and what is grey with age becomes religion."
CO LE RI DGE'S Wallenstein, Act iv. Scene 4.
—nor, on the other hand, with such men as MM. Simon and Barbeyrac, their utter and entire uselessness as guides to the Divinity Student—
nor with the Romanist and the Romanizer, their undue authoritative influence as interpreters of Scripture, to the almost entire exclusion of private judgment; but the perusing them, as our Church recommends, with diligent attention, as works pregnant with spiritual instruction, and written by men, many of whom possessed a sound erudition, a pious disposition, and a judgment often by circumstances more enlightened than our own on some of the scriptural points with which their writings are conversant ; although it should never be forgotten that there are other points in which the more scientific modern interpreter will have an advantage over the ancient.
PAGE 160, LINE 16.
And the valleys since the retreat of the ocean.] I cannot but hope that additional evidence may yet be afforded to the world, of the date of the present order of things since the Deluge, agreeing with the
APPENDIX.	227
received chronology, from a computation of the quantity of volcanic matter heaped up and thrown out around volcanoes, although this has been rather eccentric and irregular than periodical—of the effects produced on different events by the action of the sea, retreating and advancing, upon them—and from a more profound investigation of the gradual formation of coral reefs, and the probable time taken up during it. I do not know that these subjects have been at all entered upon, in this manner, as yet.
PAGE 164, LINE 22.
Dr Johnson in his Tour to the Hebrides, in describing the Isle of Mull, makes the following striking remark :
"Neither is it quite so easy to raise large woods as may be conceived. If cattle be suffered to graze upon the land where the trees are sown they will devour the plants as fast as they rise. Even in coarser countries where herds and flocks are not fed, not only the deer and wild goats will browse upon them, but the hare and the rabbit will nibble them. It is therefore reasonable to believe, what I do not remember any naturalist to have remarked, that there was a time when the world was very thinly inhabited by beasts as well as men, and that the woods had leisure to rise high before animals had bred numbers sufficient to intercept them." If this reasoning be correct, it affords collateral evidence of the truth of the assertion contained in verses 21 and 22.
FINIS.
PREPARINC FOR PUBLICATION,
A NEW
ANNOTATED EDITION
OF
THE ENGLISH POETS.
EDITED BY
ROBERT BELL,
AUTHOR OF
THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA,' LIVES OF THE ENGLISH POETS,' ETC.
THE necessity for a revised and carefully Annotated Edition of the English Poets may be found in the fact, that no such publication exists. The only Collections we possess consist of naked and frequently imperfect Texts, put forth without sufficient literary supervision. Independently of other defects, these voluminous Collections are incomplete as a whole, from their omissions of many Poets whose works are of the highest interest, while the total absence of critical and illustrative Notes renders them comparatively worthless to the Student of our National Literature,
A few of our Poets have been edited separately by men well qualified for the undertaking, and selected Specimens have appeared, accompanied by notices, which, as far as they go, answer the purpose for which they were intended. But these do not supply the want which is felt of a Complete Body of English Poetry, edited throughout with judgment and integrity, and combining those features of research, typographical elegance, and economy of price, which the present age demands.
The Edition now proposed will be distinguished from all preceding Editions in many important respects. It will include the works of several Poets entirely omitted from previous
2	ANNOTATED EDITION OF TILE ENGL:SII POETS.
Collections, especially those stores of Lyrical and Ballad Poetry in which our Literature is richer than that of any other Country, and which, independently of their poetical claims, are peculiarly interesting as Illustrations of Historical Events and National customs.
By the exercise of a strict principle of selection, this Edition will be rendered intrinsically more valuable than any of its predecessors. The Text will in all instances be scrupulously collated, and accompanied by Biographical, Critical, and Historical Notes.
An Introductory Volume will present a succinct account of English Poetry from the earliest times down to Chaucer, with whose works the Collection will commence. Occasional volumes will be introduced, in which Specimens will be given of the Minor Poets, with connecting Notices and Commentaries. The important materials gathered from previously unexplored sources by the researches of the last quarter of a century will be embodied wherever they may be available in the general design and by these means it is hoped that the Collection will be made of greater completeness than any that has been hitherto attempted, and that it will be rendered additionally acceptable as comprising in its course a Continuous History of English Poetry.
By the arrangements that will be adopted, the Works of all the principal Poets may be purchased separately and independently of the rest. The Occasional Volumes, containing, according to circumstances, the Poetry of a particular Period,—such as that of the Commonwealth, the Restoration, or the Jacobite relics,—or that may be specially devoted to historical and critical details, will also be rendered complete in themselves.
The Work will be issued in Monthly Volumes, Foo7crtp Octaro, Due Sotice will be given, of the time and order of publication,
IONDON : JOHN IV, PARKER, AND SON, WEST STRAND.
New Books and New Editions,
PUBLISHED BY
JOHN W. PARKER AND SON, WEST STRAND.
The Chancellor of t118 Exchequer's Speech
on. the Financial State and Provects of the Gantry,
delivered in the House of Commons on Monday, April 18,. 18.53. Published by Permission.
Octavo. 1s. 6d.
Hypatia ; or, New Foes with an Old Face,
by CHARLES KINGSLEY, Rector of Eversley. Reprinted
from Fraser's Magaiine.'
Two Volumes, Post Octavo. 18s.
Rigby Grand ; an Autobiography, by G.
J. WHYTE MELVILLE. Reprinted from 4 Fraser's Magazine.'
Two Volumes, Post Octavo. 1Ss.
Jesuit Executorship; or, Passages in the
Life of a Seceder front Romanism.
Two Volumes, Post Octavo. 1Ss.
The Heir of Redcly, e, by the Author of
Henrietta's Wish,' The Kings of England,' &c. &c.
Second Edition. Two Volumes, Foolscap Octavo. 12s.
The Cloister Life of the Emperor Charles
the Fifth, by WILLIAM STIRLING, M. P.
Second Edition, Enlarged. 8s.
4	Published by John W. Parker and Son,
Ofeliora I or, Better Times to Come ; edited
by VISCOUNT INGESTRE. Second Series.
REV. T. BERMES.
DR. G. BELL.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE.
REV. J. FIELD.
MONTAGUE GORE.
Containing Papers by
JOHN HULLAH.
JOHN LEIGH.
VISC. LEWISHAM, M.P.
REV. H. MACKENZIE.
Foolscap Octavo.
HON. AND REV. SIDNEY
GODOLPHIN OSBORNE. REV. T. F. STOOKS. LORD TEIGN MOUTH. ALEX. THOMSON.
Meliora I or, Better Times to Come; edited by
VISCOUNT INGESTRE. The Volume contains Papers by
REV. T. BEAMES.
HON. F. BYNG.
W. BECKETT DENISON. VISCOUNT INGESTRE. REV. C. GIRDLESTONE.
LORD GODERICH, MONTAGUE GORE. DR. GUY.
REV. DR. HooK. HENRY MAYHEW.
REV. C. G. NICOLAY. HON. and REV. S. G. OSBORNE.
REV. J. B. OWEN. MARTIN F. TUPPER.
Second Edition, Foolscap Octavo. 5s.
The Water Lily on the Danube ; an
Account of the Perils of a Pair Oar, during a Voyage from Lambeth to Pesth. By the Author of The Log of the Water Lily.' With Illustrations by one of the Crew, and a Map by A. Petermann.
Post Octavo. 6s.
Goethe's Opinions on the World, Mankind,
Literature, Science, and Art.. Translated by OTTO
WENCKSTERN.
Foolscap Octavo. 3s. 6d.
The Poems of Goethe, translated in the Ori-
ginal Metres, by EDGAR ALFRED BOWRING. Preceded by a Sketch of Goethe's Life.
Foolscap Octavo. 7s. 6d.
The Poems of Schiller, complete, attempted
in English Verse, by EDGAR ALFRED BOWRING.
Foolscap Octavo. 6s.
West Strand, London.	5
Summer Time in the Country, by R. A.
WILMOTT, Incumbent of St. Catherine's, Bearwood.
Second Edition. 5s.
Gazpacho ; or, Summer Months in Spain,
by WILLIAM GEORGE CLARK, M.A., Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge.
Second and Cheaper Edition. 5s.
Auvergne, Piedmont, and Savoy 7; a Sum-
Hes_peros ; or Travels in the West, by Mrs.
HOUSTOUN.
Two Volumes. 14s.
Wanderings in the Republics qf 'Western
America, by GEORGE BYAM.
With Illustrations. 7s. 6d.
Great Britain one Empire ; on the Union
of the Dominions of Great Britain, by Inter-communi- cation with the Pacific and the East, via British North America ; with Suggestions for the Colonization of that Wealthy Territory, by Captain M. H. SYNGE, R.E.
Post Octavo. With Maps. 38. 6d.
Critical Biographies of Public Men, by
GEORGE HENRY FRANCIS.
SIR ROBERT PEEL, BART.
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE BENJAMIN DISRAELI.
HENRY LORD BROUGHAM.
Small octavo. ls. each. The Series will be continued.
mer Ramble, by CHARLES RICHARD ELD. Post Octavo. 8s. 6d.
6	Published by John W. Parker and Son,
The Comets: a Descriptive Treatise; with
a Condensed Account of Modern Discoveries, and a Table of all the Calculated Comets from the Earliest Ages, by J. RUSSELL HIND, Foreign Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Corresponding Member of the National Institute of France, &c., &c.
Post Octavo. 5s. 6(1.
An Astronomical Vocabulary; being an
Erplanation of all Terms in Use amongst Astronomers, by J. RUSSELL HIND.
Foolscap Octavo. ls. Gd.
Propertius; with English _Notes, a Preface
on the State of Latin Scholarship, and Copious Indices, by F. A. PALEY, Editor of YEschylus.'
Octavo. 10s. Gd.
Demosthenes ; Select Private Orations,
after the Text of Dindorf; with English Notes, by C. T. PENROSE, M.A.
Second and Cheaper Edition. 4s.
The Alcestis of Euripides ; with iYotes,
by JOHN HENRY MoNK, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.
Seventh and Cheaper Edition. Octavo. 4s. Gd.
Miiller's Dissertations on the Eumenides of
2-Eschylus.
Second and Cheaper Edition, carefully revised, Gs. Gd.
West Strand, London.			
			
Church Synods. A Charge delivered at his
Third General Visitation, April, 1833, by R. B.
HONE, M.A., Archdeacon of Worcester.
Octavo.
Lives of Eminent Christians, By the
same Author.
A New Edition, thoroughly revised. Four Volumes, with Portraits,4s.6d. each.
The Natural History of Infidelity and
Superstition in Contrast with Chrisetia7z Faith ; the Bampton Lecture Sermons, preached before the University of Oxford in 1852, with Notes, by JOSEPH E. RIDDLE, M.A.
Octavo. 12s.
Babylon and Jerusalem: a Letter to Ida,
Countess of Hahn-halm. From the German. Foolscap Octavo. 2.s. 6d.
Longer Exercises in Latin Prose Composi-
tion; chiefly 'Translated from the Writings of Modern Latinists. With a Commentary on the Exercises, and Introductory Remarks on the best mode of forming a simple and correct Latin style. By J. W. DONALDSON, D.D., Head Master of Bury School.
Octavo. Gs. 6d.
A Complete Latin Grammar for Learners,
By DR. DONALDSON. 3s. 6d.
Latin(e Grammattm Ruthmenta, abridged
from 1)11. DONALDSON'S ' Complete Latin Grammar,'
with additional Elucidations for First Beginners.
1s. 6d.
Exercises adapted to Dr, Donaldson's Com=
plete Latin G ranonar. 2s. 6cl:
8	Published by John W. Parker and Son.
Tales and Stories from History, by AGNES
STRICKLAND.
Sixth and Cheaper Edition, 5s.
Conversations of a Father with his Children.
Eighth and Cheaper Edition, 3s. 6d.
First Sundays at Church. Familiar Con
versations on the Morning and Evening Services, by the Rev. J. E. RIDDLE, M.A.
Seventh and Cheaper Edition, 2s. 6d.
. Light in Darkness; or, the Records of a
Village Rectory.
Fifth and Cheaper Edition, 2s. 6d.
The Young Lady's Friend ; a Manual of
Practical Advice and Instruction to Young Females on entering upon the duties of Life after quitting School, by A LADY.
Sixth and Cheaper Edition, revised, 2s. 6d.
Three Weeks in Palestine and Lebanon, by
A CLERGYMAN.
Thirteenth and Cheaper Edition, 2s.
Readings in Italian Prose Literature
with Biographical Sketches, by G. AUBREY BEZZI, Pro:
fessor of Italian in Queen's College, London.
Foolscap Octavo. is.