22, where he thinks that perhaps it should be written. In the objection that the instrument was then unknown, we can see no force; for doubtless the weapon was known to those for whom Moses wrote. The word means flame, and the phrase, flame of sword, is correctly rendered by our translators a flaming sword, in accordance with the Hebrew idiom. We believe that our translators have given the full force of the passage, which is confirmed by the Septuagint, which renders it: "And he placed cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned (every way) to guard the way of the tree of life."*

In discussing the history of mankind from the fall to the flood, Mr. Smith takes up the successive generations, and supports the sacred history by quoting from heathen records and traditions, especially from Sanchoniathon, whom we think to be doubtful authority.

The most difficult part of this history is that related in Gen. vi, 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," &c. After noticing the different opinions that prevail on this subject, our author adopts the interpretation which makes "the sons of God" "the sons of kings, rulers, or other great men." The word unquestionably is thus used in the eighty-second Psalm: "I have said ye are gods (b): and all of you are children (or sons) of the Most High." Yet it does not appear clear that the word has this meaning in the passage under consideration. The word , rendered GOD by our translators, cannot mean rulers or powerful men, for it has the article, and in this form is applied only to the Supreme Being. Very frequently it is put for Jehovah.† But whenever the word is used to denote rulers, it is used without the article; for example, in the passage quoted from Psalm lxxxii, and in Exod. xxii, 26, where it is said, "Thou shalt not revile the gods." Nor does Moses anywhere use the phrase the sons of God," to denote rulers themselves: on the contrary, in Deut. xiv, 1, he applies it to the Israelites, as being the peculiar people of God. And we think in the passage under consideration it means the people of God. And they took them wives of all which they chose:" this does not mean that they took them forcibly or ravished them, as asserted by our author. Quite the contrary. The phrase, to take a wife, is used in various places in the

* Καὶ ἔταξε τὰ χερουβὶμ καὶ τὴν φλογίνην ῥομφαίαν τὴν στρεφομένην φυλάσσειν τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς.

† See Gesenius's Greek Lexicon, under the word .

Bible where no violence is used. When Abraham sent his servant to get a wife for Isaac, the same phrase is used.* Nor is there the slightest reason for supposing the "daughters of men" to be women of the inferior sort, any more than there is for supposing the son of man or sons of men "to be men of the inferior sort. Both phrases are used in the Scriptures for men and women in general. What is said of their offspring is not inconsistent with our view of the subject. It is not said they were giants, but simply valiant or mighty men.

In his exposition of the passage, "Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord," which he considers in connexion with this subject, our author endeavours to show that we are to understand it as meaning, “Then men profanely began to call themselves by the name of the Lord." In support of this interpretation we see no good reason offered. He argues that a conspiracy or combination of men calling themselves by the name of the Lord, accounts for the corruption of the antediluvian world, and that then the sons of these wicked rulers were called "the sons of God." We see no instance in the Bible of the word used in the text meaning to "begin profanely;"+ at least it is used in various places to express "to begin,” in a good sense. Nor do we approve of his rendering the phrase ning ja, to call themselves by the name of the Lord. It is used in various places in the Bible to express divine worship, and is rendered in the Septuagint by a phrase which in the New Testament expresses that worship. Nor is it probable, if a conspiracy or combination of wicked men had been formed so soon after the creation, that God would have borne with them for so many centuries.

In regard to the difficulty suggested by our author of reconciling the authorized version with matter of fact, since he thinks it evident that Adam and Abel called upon God, and therefore it could not be properly said that men then "began to call upon the name of the Lord;" we reply, that of Adam's piety we know nothing, Abel was slain, of Seth's we have no proof, and of Cain's we have little to expect. There might have been a suspension of divine worship, which was revived by Enos.

Respecting the sacrifice of Cain and Abel, Mr. Smith adopts the commonly-received opinion, that the cause of the acceptance of Abel's

See also Gen. iv, 19; Exod. vi, 25; xxi, 10; 1 Sam. xxv, 43.

† See Gen. ix, 20; Num. xvi, 46; 2 Chron. xxix, 27; Deut. ii, 25, 31. Some may think that Gen. x, 8, forms an exception.

f Compare the phrase ή bus της, ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τῷ ὀνόματι (or τὸ ὄνομα) Tov Kvpíov, Gen. xii, 8; Psalm lxxix, 6; Isaiah lxiv, 6; Jer. x, 25, with Acts ii, 21; ix, 14.

offering was his faith in the promised Redeemer, in accordance with which he offered animal sacrifice, while faithless Cain was content to offer the fruits of the earth. In this view we agree with him, but not in his version of the following passage in regard to their offering: "And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt not thou be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door: and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." Gen. iv, 6, 7. The latter part of the seventh verse he renders thus: "And if thou doest not well, a sin-offering coucheth at the door," p. 205. This emendation (first given by Dr. Lightfoot) he approves of, for the following reasons: That we cannot suppose that Cain was to rule over Abel, who is not mentioned in the connexion; that the word in many places means a sin-offering; and that it affords some consolation to Cain. Now, in reply to the first objection, we have to say that we do not refer "him," in the phrase "thou shalt rule over him,” to Abel, but to something totally different, which we will presently give. That the word nn sometimes means a sin-offering, we readily grant. Which of the two meanings it has here, sin or a sin-offering, must be determined from the context. What he says respecting Cain's consolation, is but little to the point; Cain was admonished to be on his guard. The objections we have to our author's emendation are these: That the word y, from y, to lie, rendered 'lieth" by our translators, is a participle, which in Hebrew, as well as in other languages, is frequently used for a noun. Here it means the lurker, as applied to the lurking lion who was at the door ready to devour him. Here a masculine pronoun is used, in, which does not agree in gender with non, which is feminine, but agrees with y, lurker: consequently the passage means that "sin, like a lurking lion, lies at the door; but unto thee shall (or may) be his desire: i. e., he shall be perfectly under thy control, and thou mayest rule over him."* This seems to us consistent with the whole scope of the passage. But to apply it to a sin-offering appears quite strange. What propriety would there be in representing a sin-offering lying (a lurker) at the door? and then what explanation can be given of the phrase, "Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him?" To us this seems to admit of no probable solution.

With Grotius, Puffendorf, and many other distinguished men, he believes that God taught Adam what are commonly called the heads of natural law. This appears to us very reasonable; for we cannot suppose for a moment that God created man, and turned him loose

* See Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon, under the word 727.

into the world, without giving him a knowledge of his will and the laws by which his life was to be governed. Among these laws, he thinks was the observance of the Sabbath; and he so translates the passage in Genesis, respecting the sanctification of that day, as to make it read that God commanded man to sanctify and observe it. Perhaps the whole may be more correctly rendered as follows: And God rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made; and God caused (man) to bless and worship on the seventh day, and ordered (him) to sanctify it." But here we must again differ from our author; we cannot perceive any reason for his emendation of the authorized version. In the original, the word does not mean to cause to bless, but simply to bless; p is used frequently in the Bible, and never means to cause another to sanctify a thing, but merely to sanctify; and there is no word in the text corresponding to "worship." If this version of the passage be allowable, then as many and different versions may be given as Proteus has shapes, and every part of Scripture becomes dubious.

Next in order is the Deluge. After discussing the structure of the ark, the entry of Noah into it, and his abode there, our author answers in a very satisfactory manner the objections that have been made to a deluge:

"1. The want of any direct history of a deluge by the profane writers of antiquity; 2. The apparent impossibility of accounting for the quantity of water necessary to overflow the whole earth; and 3. The absence of any apparent necessity for a universal deluge, as the same result might have been accomplished by a partial one."-P. 254.

In reply to the first objection, he shows conclusively that nearly all nations have a tradition of a deluge, and that it has been mentioned by some of the most distinguished historians of antiquity. The mass of evidence which he produces on this point, one might think would satisfy the most sceptical. In regard to the second, he observes that it is probable there now exists water enough to effect this purpose, which is concealed in the bowels of the earth and in the air, supported in the latter by electricity, upon the discharge of which it would fall to the earth,

"While the waters of the ocean, those from which fountains originate, and those contained in the solid earth itself, would rise from the very centre to meet the waters which descended from above. Thus the breaking up of the fountains of the deep, and the opening of the windows of heaven, would accompany each other, as Moses tells us they actually did; for, according to him, both happened at the same time."-Pp. 262, 263.

To the third objection he replies, that the language of Scripture implies the universality of the deluge: "And all the high hills that

were under the whole heaven were covered;" that it is probable that a large part of the earth's surface was then inhabited, and these districts could not be inundated for twelve months without affecting the other parts of the earth's surface; that if but one district had been inundated, there would have been no need of building the ark, &c., since Noah might have removed to another district.

The Triad, found in many systems of paganism, and considered by some Christian philosophers (among whom is the great Cudworth) as a reference to the Trinity of persons in the Godhead, is supposed by our author to refer to the three sons of Noah. This latter supposition seems to us more probable than the former; for it seems quite clear that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a doctrine taught us by anything in nature, but is peculiar to the gospel dispensation, although some divines think, but with little reason, that the plural form (7) for God, used in the Old Testament, is an intimation of that doctrine.* At the same time, we think there are some instances in which it will be very difficult to identify this Triad with the sons of Noah.

After some observations on the rainbow and the most common interpretation of it; which is, that the bow was seen before the flood, and after that event was appointed to Noah as a sign; and granting this interpretation to be allowable, he nevertheless says:

"We have not, in the whole range of Scripture history, any case similar to the one before us, explained in this manner. We have, indeed, many instances in which the Lord has condescended to give signs to his creatures. Unto Ahaz he said, 'A virgin shall conceive,' &c., Isa. vii, 14; unto Abraham, a 'smoking furnace and a burning lamp' were displayed, Gen. xv, 17; unto Hezekiah, the shadow went ten degrees back on the dial of Ahaz, 2 Kings xx, 11; Isa. xxxviii, 8; and, in the case of Gideon, 'the fleece was wet, and all the ground about it was dry; and then afterward, 'it was dry, and all the ground about it was wet,' Judg. vi, 38-40. But, in all these cases, we have something new in nature-no mere application of a well-known preexisting phenomenon. We do not think that the case before us should be so interpreted as to form an exception to this general rule. Yet we do not clearly see our way to a satisfactory solution. The passage presents an indeterminate problem on the ground of insufficient data. We will not dogmatize on the subject; but venture to suggest what appears to us to be the most probable solution-that this bow had not been seen prior to the flood; and that some change at that time took place, either in the state of the atmosphere, or in the refrangible power of drops of rain, which then produced, and still continues to produce, the beautiful phenomenon which we call the rainbow."Pp. 307, 308.

* It was a custom among the Hebrews, in speaking of anything great, to put it in the plural. Thus, , eloah, sing., a god; plur., □, elohim, a great god, the Almighty: 2, běhemah, sing., a beast; plur., iz, běhemoth, a great beast, the behemoth: 7, adhon, sing., master; plur., , adhonim, Lord. This plural form is applied even to Abraham., hhayyim, plur., life.