differences between Malachi and Isaiah, or Isaiah and David, or David and Moses, would indicate much longer intervening periods, than would be expected, aside from this consideration. And a proper allowance being made, we shall find no difficulty in regarding the Pentateuch as belonging to the time of Moses.

SECTION III.-AUTHOR OF THE BOOK.

12. That the Pentateuch was written by Moses, is the uniform testimony of antiquity; and no dissenting opinion was ever expressed until very modern times. This fact ought of itself to be deemed satisfactory in a case of this kind. If the Book had had any other author, the fact would have been known, and would have been stated, or at least implied, in some of the numerous references to this part of the Bible. To this consideration we may add others. That Moses was instructed to write a book, and that he did accordingly write one, is made known in the book itself. See Ex. xvii. 14; xxiv. 4,7; xxxiv. 27; Num. xxxiii. 2; xxviii. 58, 61; xxix. 20, 21, 27, &c. Besides this, the minuteness and particularity with which the events of his day are described, indicate clearly that the record was made at the time, and by one who was intimately acquainted with the transactions he describes; and this can be affirmed of no one so well as of Moses.

13. That Moses did not write every word contained in the book, (the account of his own death, for example,) may be conceded with no detriment to our argument. Nor do we insist on his being the author of the book, with a view of maintaining its reliability as a true record on that ground; but simply because the evidence, so far as ascertained and understood, leads to this conclusion. The truth of the record, depends, aside from its author, on certain considerations which we will give in their proper place.

SECTION IV. -COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.

14. Assuming that Moses is the author of the book of Genesis, we may ask in what way he came by a knowledge of the facts contained in the book, as the latest of these facts occurred several hundred years before his day. We know of but two answers to this question, one of which only can be true. Either the facts were given him by divine inspiration, or he obtained them from pre-existing records. We adopt the latter theory. Moses nowhere tells us how he came by the records he gives us, which he would not have omitted to do if he had received them directly from God. In other instances he says that "the Lord spake" to him; but he never makes this statement in regard to the facts recorded in Genesis. We conclude then, that there were in existence, at that time, some writings in which these things were made known, and that from these Moses made up his book. Of course he did not need to make any direct statement as to the source of his information, since that was a matter well understood by the people.

15. Besides, there is an intrinsic propriety in this view of the subject. The same reasons for making known these things to Moses, may be urged in favor of their having been made known before. It was quite as necessary that Abraham should be informed of what had occurred previous to his time, as that Moses should be. And if Abraham, why not Noah? And if Noah, why not Adam?

Evidently all these, and all the people between Adam and Moses were interested to know the past history of the world, as much as was Moses and those who succeeded him. We can hardly suppose, therefore, that the records of Genesis were unknown till the time of Moses, and then, for the first time, were revealed to him.

16. But if we go back to Adam, it will not be difficult to see that the events of his time could be known to him and transmitted to others without any special aid of inspiration. The same may be said of Noah. What occurred in his day, he could understand and make known, without any special illumination. So could Abraham; so could Isaac, and Jacob, and Joseph. True, the art of writing may not have been known in the days of Adam; but tradition was quite sufficient to have transmitted the few things that are recorded of that early age, and to have preserved them till the art of writing could put them into a more permanent and enduring form.

17. When this art was first known, cannot be determined by any certain and reliable evidences.Jewish tradition refers it back to a very ancient period, to the days of Enoch, or to Adam. A more reliable opinion places it in the days of Abraham; and it is certain that writing had been known for a considerable period before the time of Moses. Hence, when first referred to in the Bible, it is not spoken of as a new thing. See Ex. xvii. 14. That it did not exist in the days of the Patriarchs, has been argued from the use of monuments and symbols, as mementoes of certain transactions; for it is contended that written memorials would have taken the place of these, if writing had been known. I take this argument not to be wholly conclusive, since such monuments were in use at a later day, when the art of writing is known to have existed. Indeed, in most cases, if not all, where such monuments were employed, there is reason to believe that they answered the purpose had in view better than any writing could have done; and if so, they may have been chosen on that account. Or, if this fact be not admitted, the scarcity of the knowledge of this art, rather than its entire absence, is all that we ought to infer from the circumstance in question.

18. The theory that makes Moses to have made up the book of Genesis from former records, known and acknowledged by the people, while it is the most natural theory, does, at the same time, allow of all the inspiration that can be justly claimed for the book. Adam, for example, could know the fact of the creation of the world, more especially the order observed in the creative process, only by divine inspiration; but having received such a communication, he could preserve it along with the facts of his own experience, without any special divine aid. Noah could be informed of God's intention to drown the world, and the proper arrangements to be made in view of such a calamity, only by a commuication from God; but the communication once made, it could be preserved with other events, and the record handed down to the next generation. Abraham, too, received divine knowledge in dreams and visions; but he needed no special aid to relate his experience of this kind, and to hand it down with other transactions.

These remarks will show the views we entertain of the manner in which the book was brought into existence, and the extent and mode of its inspiration. But the subject of Inspiration belongs to another place, and need not be treated of now.

19. Again; in the estimation of some theologians of eminence, there are good reasons for believing that the history of the world prior to the time of Abraham, and perhaps still later, was preserved in two separate and distinct documents, which are combined in the record we now have. We confess that the theory has some strong reasons in its favor, though we are not entirely satisfied of its truth. One of these documents is called, by these theologians, the "Elohim Document," because Elohim, in the original, is the name for God used by its author; and the other, for a similar reason, is called the "Jehovah Document."

20. The Elohim Document commences with the first chapter, and continues to chapter second, 4th verse; or, perhaps to the middle of that verse. It is then resumed in chapter fifth, and continues through that chapter. Then vi. 9-22. It next takes up the record at verse 7th, of chapter seventh, and ends with verse 16th, omitting the last clause. Then chapter viii. 1-19. Then ix. 1-29; and finally xi. 10-26, bringing the account down to the time of Abraham. All these passages are found to connect themselves together as a regular narrative, besides the circumstance before named, that they uniformly call the Deity by the name of God. (Elohim, in the original.)

Of course, what is called the Jehovah Document, is found in the places we have omitted, viz: ii. 4 to iv. 26: vi. 1-8; vii. 1-6; vii. 16-24; viii. 20–22; x. 1 to xi. 9. These do not connect themselves together as in the former case, indicating an omission, it is thought, of some words or paragraphs from this document, when the two were combined. The passage in vi. 1-8, has "God" instead of "Lord," (Jehovah) in three instances; but one of these, (verse 5th,) is a mistranslation, while the other two are regarded as spurious readings. Assuming the theory of the two documents to be correct, the differences between them would require an explanation. We do not see in them the contradictions that are claimed for them by the advocates of the theory.

21. In the one document, as we before said, the name of God is Elohim, while in the other, it is Jehovah or Jehovah Elohim, the first being translated God, and the last, Lord, or Lord God.

Both give an account of the creation, not indeed wholly alike, but not necessarily contradictory. It is better to say, that one account, in chapter first, lays down the exact order, and marks each step of the progress by the term "day," while the other account,