on their grossness, he only adds strength to the argument.

77. Many good Christians, on hearing of the "various readings" of the Bible, have become very much alarmed, lest Christianity should be thrown from its foundations by this discovery; and with equal inconsistency, Infidels have sought to make what they seem to regard, as an overwhelming argument from the same consideration. The copies of the Bible show differences in the readings, as might be expected, and would be expected, by all reasonable men; these copies having been, as of necessity they were, written by human hands, and transmitted by fallible agency from generation to generation. Such readings have been carefully collected from all the manuscripts and copies known in the world; and though they are very numerous, amounting to many thousands; yet, but few of them possess any importance, as affecting the sense of the passages. Much the largest proportion of such readings, relate to the spelling of words, the position of words in the sentence without affecting the sense, the use of synonymous words, or even a dot or mark employed to guide the pronunciation.

78. In respect to the book of Genesis, (and indeed all the five books of Moses,) no various readings have been collected and preserved, with one unimportant exception, but such as relate to the vowel points, or marks before described; and as these are no part of the original language, and are only intended to guide the pronunciation, the variations found in them, can have but little bearing on the interpretation of the book. Doubtless, however, there have been various readings in the consonants as well as vowels, not only from the impossibility of avoiding them; but the ancient translations make the fact quite evident.

Still the same translations, from which such various readings are proved to have existed, make us certain that they could not have been such as to materially affect the sense.

79. To illustrate the little importance that should be attached to the various readings of the Bible, as affecting the meaning of passages, we will give the various readings of the first two chapters of the Septuagint. This version of the Bible dates back three hundred years before the Christian era; and of course there has been no lack of time for various readings to accumulate.

Gen. i. 4. In the phrase, "God saw the light,” the spelling of the word for "saw" is not alike in all the copies.

i. 7. Some copies subjoin to this verse, "it was so;" while others omit this phrase.

i. 11. The phrase "after its kind," has, in some copies, the additional expression, "after its likeness.” i. 14. "To rule over the day and over the night” is added by some and omitted by others.

i. 22. The word "blessed" is differently spelled. i. 25. In one part of this verse, "their kind" has, in some copies, "their," and in some not.

i. 25.

"Blessed" differently spelled. So in ii. 3. ii. 5. Some have Lord instead of God. So in ii. 8. ii. 10. "Garden" is in a different case in some copies from what it is in others.

ii. 11. "Pison" is differently spelled as to a single letter. So the name Havilah.

The spelling of Gihon varies.

ii. 13.

ii. 14.

The original for "goeth" is slightly varied.
The word for "eat," in the latter part of

ii. 17.

the verse, slightly varies.

ii. 19. Some have "their name," and some have "its" name.

ii. 21, 22. Lord for God..

ii. 23. "She was taken from ner husband” is the

reading of some; and "she was taken from man" is the reading of other manuscripts; but the use or omission of a single letter, makes all the difference.

ii. 24. "His father and mother," or, "his father and his mother;" so "his wife" has a trifling variation in different copies.

80. How these variations originated, is easy to be seen. Different spelling would naturally occur. That Lord should be used for God, might also be expected. The phrase, "it was so," being several times used in the first chapter, it would very easily be inserted where it did not belong. "To rule over the day and over the night" was presumed to be required in i. 14, because it was used in a similar connection elsewhere. Similar reasons can be given for other variations. In all these examples the sense of the passages is scarcely varied in the slightest degree. Most of the various readings are of this character; and though some are more important, they are not such as to affect the general teachings of the book, or to lessen our confidence therein, as a true and reliable record of ancient times, or as a basis of our theological faith.

CHAPTER II.

CRITICISM ON IMPORTANT WORDS.

Contents: Elohim, Bara, Rhua, Nephish, Olim, Sheol, Malak.

There are some words in the book of Genesis, to which more than ordinary importance should be attached, from their relation to important subjects, or from the use that has been made of them to sustain doctrines that are adverse to the general teachings of the book. These we propose to notice in the present chapter.

SECTION I.- ELOHIM, THE NAME OF GOD.

81. This name, in Hebrew, is found in the plural number; and a literal rendering of the first sentence of the Bible would be, "In the beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth." What.shall we say

in regard to this word in this form? Shall we say, as some Infidels have said, that the Hebrew Scriptures, like the Mythology of the Pagans, recognize more Gods than one? or shall we conclude, as some Christian theologians have taught, that the reference is to the plurality of persons in the Godhead? or can we find an explanation less objectionable in the idiom of the language? The latter is what we propose to

make out.

82. The evidence that Elohim, though plural in form, is singular in sense, and denotes but one being, when applied to the Supreme Divinity, is indicated by several circumstances worthy of note. In the first place, though the word God is plural, it is joined with verbs in the singular. The only consistent explanation that can be given of this fact, is, that though the form of the word is plural, the sense is singular; for in Hebrew, as in other languages, the rule is applicable, that "the verb must agree with its nominative case in number, &c."

Again; other words joined with Elohim, and meaning the same thing, ("in apposition with it," as grammarians say,) are found in the singular number. Ex. amples: "I am God, the God of thy fathers." xlvi. 3. The first word for God, (El) is in the singular, while the last, (Elohim) is plural; and yet that both words are alike in sense, no one can doubt. The same term, (El) in the singular, occurs again in xlvi. 3, xxviii. 3, xvii. 1, and is used to denote the same being as the other word. Again; Elohim has the singular pronoun joined with it. The following examples are a few of the many that might be adduced

under this head. Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do. I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart. By myself have I sworn. I am the God of Abraham. I am the God of Bethel, I will go down with thee into Egypt. xviii. 17; xx. 6; xxii. 16; .xxvi. 24; xxxi. 13; xlvi. 4.

In all these instances, the singular pronoun refers to Elohim, showing that the latter, as well as the former, is singular in sense.

83. But what shall we do with a few exceptions to the principles last noticed? They are the following: Let us make man in our image. i. 26. Behold, the man is become as one of us. iii. 22. Let us go down and there confound their language. xi. 7. From the general use of the singular pronoun in connection with the word God, we would infer that the three exceptions here given, must have some special reasons to justify their use, aside from the plurality of the subject to which they relate. We are certainly not to take them as indicating the rule, when they are so few, and a multitude of examples belong to the other side. They are evidently the exception. On this usage I would just remark, that Gods, and not three persons in the Godhead, is the subject of the sentence. There can really be no controversy between us and Trinitarians, for the Trinity is no way implied in the language. The only controversy that can exist, is between us and those who would make Polytheism a doctrine of the Bible. In the next place, all these passages are found on the list of what we have denominated rhetorical passages, and must be explained accordingly. It is not a far-fetched conclusion, we think, that the author intended to bring before us the fact that God has his attendants, often alluded to in other parts of the book, who are ever ready to execute his will, and whose presence is here recognized. The language does by no means imply