Solomon some Hebrew scholar may have visited Babylonia for the very purpose of recovering all that could be ascertained regarding primitive history; and we know so very little of ancient literary methods and of the growth of Hebrew books, that it would be unreasonable to deny that knowledge thus obtained may have found its way into this Book of Genesis.

As to the incidental marks of age to be found in the book itself, it is very easy to make too much of them. Much has been made of the expression in the 36th chapter: "These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel," an expression which plainly implies that when it was written there were kings reigning over Israel. But there is so little solidarity in the book, that the ascertainment of the date of one part of it does not carry with it the discovery of the date of the whole. In several instances names of places are made use of, which were only given to these places after the conquest of Canaan by Israel. In Joshua we are told that the original name of Hebron was KirjathArba, yet in Genesis xiii. 18 the name Hebron occurs; and in chap. xxiii. 2, though the name Kirjath-Arba is used, the explanation is added, “the same is Hebron." Certainly these expressions compel us to conclude that, in the days of the kingdom, the book was still open to revision, though they may not compel us to conclude that the story was then first committed to writing. In these circumstances, it is perhaps rash to venture an opinion regarding the date of the final form of the book; but it seems probable that the Elohistic narrative dates from a remote pre-Mosaic age, and was kept by the patriarchs as a book of annals or a growing tradition might be kept, receiving additions as history developed. But whether the additions made by the Jehovist to this original narrative were accompanied by a final revision, or whether one or more revisions succeeded that of the Jehovist, and at what date these several hands contributed to the book, these seem as yet unanswered questions.

It will now be understood in what sense the book can be said to have an author. It comes to us anonymously. It begins its story abruptly, without a word of introduction. It is only by inference

from expressions the author uses, or from the testimony of other parts of Scripture, that we can gather to whom we are indebted for this inestimable book. Little can be gained from the allusions to Genesis in other parts of the Bible. The first five books are called The Books of Moses, but this expression is used loosely, not implying that strictly speaking they are all and in every part from the hand of Moses; but mainly that these books contain the law of Moses, and can claim his authority. Neither does the fact that these five books are not separated in the Jewish MSS., but stand as one book, imply so much as at first sight might appear. They are one book, and were probably only divided into five separate books long after they had been divided into chapters and sections; but though we know that Moses was the author of some parts of this whole, we cannot forthwith conclude he wrote every part of it. Indeed, there are passages here and there in the Pentateuch which one would not like to think had been penned by Moses. In Exodus (xi. 3) we find the words, "Moreover, the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the people." In Numbers (xii. 3) we read, "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth." These are not expressions such as a man would naturally use in speaking of himself, neither is it possible that a man would say of himself what we find the author of Deuteronomy saying of Moses, "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom Jehovah knew face to face." And if any one supposes that by denying to Moses anything more than having some hand in the book, we either detract from its authority or do some injury to Moses, his anxieties will be allayed by considering the words of the great Leader himself: "Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them."

There is another point which seems to demand notice in any introduction to the Book of Genesis-the relation of the account it gives of the origin of things to the account given by science. During a long period of the world's history the Book of Genesis was the

only source of information regarding the origin of things. Science was during that period unborn, and the marvellous stores of knowledge it has recently disclosed were all unthought of. But now the indefatigable industry of scientific men is year by year deciphering some fresh line of the worn record in which nature has written her autobiography; and secrets she has hidden from the foundation of the world are being proclaimed in every ear. The astronomer tells us under what altered conditions of climate this globe existed 200,000 years ago: the geologist traces on the earth's surface, and in the rocks that underlie it, the effects of these different climatal conditions, and produces also the remains of animals adapted to the temperature and the kind of life they suppose. Back and back through apparently interminable ages science leads us, and as she goes she shows us with tolerable accuracy the points at which new kinds of creatures began to be. She takes us back into far distant periods when the plants and animals known to us had as yet no existence, and introduces us to the strange, rudimentary forms in which life first manifested itself on the earth. About the first step of all, about the original communication of life to material forms, she has nothing to say; but about the development of that life, and about its spread and history upon earth, she has collected an abundance of facts, and has much detailed information to give us. She has in short already written in outline, and will no doubt speedily fill up a history of this globe and of the introduction of life upon it—a history the main features of which all educated men will accept.

We have thus two histories covering somewhat the same period, viz. from the beginning of things down to the comparatively recent date of some 6000 years ago. We have this brief sketch in the first chapter of Genesis, which can be read and may have been written in a few minutes; and we have the record, which has been slowly graven on the crust of the earth during many hundreds of thousands of years. Both are from God-the facts registered by the rocks are as infallible as anything recorded in Scripture; they are sacred as God's own writing, which has come from His hand without the intervention of any human pen. Either record may be misinterpreted. The man

of science may fail to read aright the facts before his eyes; he may omit to see what is actually there, or may group his facts in a mistaken manner, and deduce conclusions that are unwarranted. The interpreter of Scripture may misunderstand the record he takes to do with, and from the infallible Word of God may deduce meanings and draw inferences which are as fallible as his own ignorance and prejudice. But in neither case is the record to be blamed. The greatest mistake of all is made when men seek in the one record for what can only be found in the other, when they go to the Bible for science, or rely upon nature for a full knowledge of God's purposes; when they either on the one hand refuse to listen to the affirmations of nature because they seem to disagree with what is found in the Bible, or when on the other hand they are content with the teaching of nature, as if nature could tell us all we need to know about ourselves, about the world, and about God. The proper attitude towards the two records has been defined by one who has himself keenly studied both, who is at once a professor of geology and an eminent Christian apologist. "If the question," he says, "be a question in physical science, if the subject be one which is clearly revealed in nature, then, without hesitation, I would follow the teachings of Nature, even though some scriptural allusions to natural phenomena by our traditional interpretation may seem to teach differently. And I believe I honour the Author of both books by so doing. But if the question be a question of moral and spiritual truth, and the teachings of Scripture are clear and unmistakeable, then I follow the Divine text-book of moral and spiritual truth in spite of some dim intimations in external nature, and in my own intuitions which seem to point to a different conclusion. And I think I honour the Author of both books by so doing" (Leconte, Religion and Science, p. 240). Or, to use the words of a still abler writer, "There is a principle frequently insisted on, scarcely denied by any, yet recognised with sufficient clearness by few of the advocates of revelation, which, if fully and practically recognised, would have saved themselves much perplexity and vexation, and the cause they have at heart the disgrace with which it has been covered by the futile attempts that

have been made through provisional and shifting interpretations to reconcile the Mosaic Genesis with the rapidly advancing strides of physical science. The principle referred to is this: Matters which are discoverable by human reason, and the means of investigation which God has put within the reach of man's faculties, are not the proper subjects of Divine revelation, and matters which do not concern morals or bear on man's spiritual relations towards God are not within the province of revealed religion. If, then, a person writing by the inspiration of God on things pertaining to religion should have occasion to speak of the phenomena of nature, it might be expected beforehand that he would speak of them as they are phenomena—that is, according to the impressions which they make as appearances, and so according to his own existing conceptions or the imperfect apprehensions of those for whose use he might have been more immediately writing" (Quarry on Genesis, pp. 12, 13).

This principle is illustrated by the first chapter of Genesis. Its object is not to teach physical science and anticipate the investigations for which natural human faculty is sufficient: its object is the higher one of determining the connection of nature with God. We do not need an inspired narrative to tell us that the sun is set to rule the day and the moon to rule the night-at no period of the world's history did men need this information; but at every period of the world's history, equally when science was unborn and in our own day when it is full-grown, do we need to know that which this narrative was written to assure us of, that it was God who created and appointed the sun and all natural forces. We do not need this chapter that we may learn in what order animals and plants appeared upon earth, but we do need to be assured that whatever was the order of succession in which they appeared, that order was determined by the intelligent will of God. It was as needful to know this when men's notions of the order were mistaken, as it is needful now when men's notions are being rectified. There is no regard to scientific accuracy in the statement that God made the world in six days, but the impression left is strictly true, that it was an easy matter, a mere week's work with God, to create the world. Science says this planet

B