that these exceptions usually occur when respect is had rather to the plural form than to the signification of the word. That in this very text where the plural form obtains, both in the subject and predicate of the proposition, the discourse is concerning the one true God, is manifest by a reference to a parallel passage. In this place Abraham says, when Elohim caused me to wander (verb in plural form) from my father's house, that I said, &c. His allusion is to what is narrated Gen. xii. "Now the Lord (Jehovah) had said unto Abram, get thee out from thy country," &c. It is thus demonstrated that the word Elohim, even when construed with a plural verb, is used to designate that one God who was known to the Israelites by his proper name, Jehovah. Other instances where plural adjectives are joined to the word in question, when there can be no doubt that the true God is spoken of, are furnished Ps. Iviii. 12; Joshua xxiv. 19. It is time, however, to close this discussion, with which I shall terminate the present section.

SECTION XI.

Objections particularly referring to the Book of Genesis.

"FROM the last verse of Genesis, to the end of the Revelation, there is no reference made to the book of Genesis or its contents." Such a remark proceeding from any other writer than the author of the "Connexion between Geology and the Pentateuch," would greatly surprise us. It, however, perfectly corresponds to many assertions with which we meet in that production. The total absence of truth which distinguishes it, I need not attempt to prove, so far as my concern is with those who are at all acquainted with the Bible, either in its earlier or its later portions. Yet to those less informed on the subject, the inquiry may be addressed-How could the succeeding books be at all understood without the history contained in this introductory one? How would the Israelites have known any thing respecting the God of their fathers; He who is ever called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and whose promises, repeatedly made to these patriarchs, are so frequently referred to? And how could they have known any thing in relation to their migration into Egypt, and the events which there occurred?

It must be manifest then, to every one who will

reflect on the subject, that the book in question is absolutely indispensable to the completeness of the historical records of the Jews.

To this book, however, apart from its imagined want of connection with those which succeed, our author takes the strongest exceptions. There are several reasons which he suggests, against its reception as a genuine production.

1. It is composed of various independent documents. I am at a loss to conceive what bearing upon the subject this consideration can have. Dr. Cooper furnishes a full account of the several theories which have been offered respecting the sources whence Moses derived his materials for writing the history contained in Genesis. He seems to think that the admission of the correctness of these theories, which agree in the essential fact, that preexisting documents were used, and differ only in respect to the number of them, is equivalent to an abandonment of the position that the first book of the Pentateuch is a Mosaic production. Absurd imagination! Such an assumption is entirely inconsequential. Does he not know that the orthodox Vitringa first suggested the opinion under view in his Observationes Sacræ Lib. 1, civ. § 23, p. 36, Franeq. 1712, long before it was fully developed by Astruc, A. D. 1753, and modified by Eichorn and Ilgen? Is he not aware that many have since adopted it, who never for a moment questioned the

authority of Genesis, as proceeding from Moses? Such is especially the fact in reference to Jahn and Rosenmueler among the biblical critics, and Knapp among the theologians; who have however shown the impotence of the attempts to ascertain the precise number of documents used, or to define accurately their beginnings or endings-and wherein consists the incompatibility of this theory with the views which we advocate? There are only three sources from which we can suppose Moses to have derived his materials. He must have received them directly from the Deity by inspiration, or derived them from oral traditions, or possessed some ancient written memorials of the human race. Admit the latter supposition to be true, either wholly or partially, and how does it derogate from the character of Genesis? Still its accuracy is vouched for by Moses, able, as he is allowed on all hands to have been, to judge respecting the trustworthiness of any ancient documents, and qualified according to our apprehension, to give them the sanction of an inspired prophet.

But it is alleged that these documents are conflicting, exceptionable in themselves, or manifestly derived from another people long subsequent to the age of Moses. There is supposed to be a contrariety between the two accounts of the creation of man, contained in the first and second chapters of Genesis, which are regarded as being two of these

documents. The plain state of the case is—that in the former chapter there is a brief mention of the formation of man in the general account of the work of the six days. In the latter the subject is resumed, and some details of the transaction are given, entirely consistent with the mere succinct statement previously furnished.

But in the one narrative, the designation given to the Creator is Elohim; in the other it is Jehovah Elohim. And what does this prove? that there were separate accounts in the hands of Moses, which he had derived from his forefathers? Let this be allowed, and what does the adversary gain? Who supposes that it at all detracts from the value of an historical work, that in its compilation, two distinct, although harmonious authorities have been usedthe one going more into detail than the other? And these documents are not confusedly thrown together, or barely compiled by one who assumed no responsibility in regard to them. Moses often blends them intimately, as is the case in Gen. vi. 5, 6; "And God (Elohim) saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and it repented the Lord (Jehovah) that he had made man.”

By the way, I would remark upon a considerable oversight of Dr. Cooper, in referring to Eichorn's classification of texts. They who read the works of this writer, must have often wondered at his studious display of scriptural erudition, and at his