account of creation which is recorded in Genesis is the narrative of the world's formation, and, as a consequence, proposition number two, is established. Let us now attend to the proof of the first proposition which affirms the identity of the Lord God, with the Lord Jesus, or the Word.

Since without controversy Jesus is the Word, the more familiar titles by which he is known shall be employed. To determine the question at issue we must ascertain definitely who the Lord God is. Taking the first step in the proposed direction we discover that the Lord God and Jehovah are one and the same Being. "Lord God" is simply the English translation, or rather a substitution for the Hebrew of Jehovah, and "wherever this word occurs in the sacred writings we translate it Lord," (Dr. A. Clarke.) The first instance of the use of the word Yehovah or Jehovah occurs just where the new name Lord God is also first introduced, and this fact is of itself sufficent to prove that the terms Lord God and Jehovah are applied to one and the same being. But to allay the last lingering trace of doubt we quote Exodus xxxiv, 6, "And the Lord passed by before him and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious," etc. In the fifth verse we are told that this proclamation was made for the special purpose of revealing the name of the Lord. The original states that the "Lord passed by and proclaimed, Yehovah, the Lord God." No human process of reasoning can add anything to the value of the Lord's own testimony that Jehovah is the Lord God; and we pass on to prove the identity of the Jehovah of the Old Testament with the Christ of the New.

But brief space needs to be occupied to show that the Being who gave the law from Mount Sinai, and established the covenants of the Old Testament with the children of Israel was the Lord Jehovah. In Deuteronomy v, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, this is written, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with fathers, but with us, even us, who all of us here alive this day. The

our

are

Lord talked with you face to face, in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, *** saying, I am the Lord, (Jehovah) thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt from the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." In this Scripture the Divine Being who made the covenant which is commonly known as the Mosaic, expressly states that He is Jehovah, and the God of the Israelites. Now the Prophet Jeremiah affirms in the most precise language that a new covenant with Israel was to be made by the same person who had made the old one. He writes: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." We learn from the Apostle Paul, (Hebrews viii,) that this prediction of Jeremiah was fulfilled when the covenant of the gospel dispensation was established by our Lord Jesus Christ, of which he is the sole and only author. The apostle quotes the very language of the promise made by the prophet, and argues conclusively that the gospel of Jesus Christ embraces the new covenant that Jehovah had declared he would make at some time; and hence Jehovah and Jesus must be one and the same person.

Again, "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, (Jehovah) make straight in the desert a highway for our God, every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain shall be brought low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain, and the glory of the Lord, (Jehovah) shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together." This being spoken of him of whom John the Baptist was to be the forerunner; and the application having been afterward expressly made by the Baptist to our Lord, is evident that He is the person to whom the prophet attributes the incommunicable name of Jehovah, and styled Him our God. (Quoted from Watson.)

In Hebrew xi, 26, Paul, the Apostle, tells us that Moses esteemed the re

proach of Christ, greater riches than the treasures of Egypt." It is evident from the text that the religious principles which Moses professed were held in contempt by the idolatrous Egyptians, and the God, Jehovah, which he worshiped was among them an object of ridicule. Now if Jehovah and Christ be not the same person, with what propriety can the apostle call the "reproach of Jehovah," the "reproach of Christ?" Jehovah and Christ were manifestly convertible names with the apostle, and no fear need be entertained that we shall err in following his example.

I Corinthians x, 9, reads as follows: "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." The Israelites, when in the wilderness, are referred to in the latter portion of this verse as we readily learn from the fifth. Now the text states that the Jews then tempted Christ, for there is no rule of grammar that will tolerate the substitution of any word or words after "tempted" but either Christ or him. The use of "also" in the text establishes this intrepretation beyond a doubt. "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted." Tempted whom? Why, manifestly Christ. The proof sought to establish the identity of Jehovah and Jesus will be closed with one more passage found in Hebrews xii, 25, 26: "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh; for if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, how much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven, whose voice then shook the earth, but now he hath promised, saying, etc." The context determines Christ to be "Him that speaketh from heaven, whose voice it was that shook the earth, when the law was given on Sinai. The necessary grammatical construction of the text definitely points out Christ as the one who gave the laws to Moses.

The passage of Scripture just quoted is so decisive of the question under consideration that we forbear to make further references, lest our readers become wearied. It was proposed

in the beginning of this investigation to prove also from modern revelation that the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and Christ of the new, are identical, but such overwhelming Scriptural proof has already been adduced that it suffices to say that the teachings of the Church now are in perfect harmony with ancient Scripture, which taught that Christ and Jehovah are the same person.

Having demonstrated, beyond the possibility of serious contradiction, that our first proposition is true, the second one will now be considered. The statement has already been made that if the Lord God or Jehovah spoken of by Moses, and whom he proclaims to be the creator of the world, is undeniably the Christ, who, according to John, performed the same creative act, we are justified in concluding the so called Jehovistic narrative of creation contains the account of the formation of the heavens and the earth, as they are now constituted. This proposition is so plain and simple in view of the facts, which have been adduced, that universal assent to it may be presumed. Indeed, we remind our readers that the most powerful argument which infidelity has ever originated tending to discredit the divine inspiration of Genesis, is based upon the assumption that both the Elohistic and the Jehovistic narratives refer to the creation of the visible universe, of which this earth forms a part. The same opinion is entertained by Christians in general, and hence, we find a harmonious and perfect testimony that the section of Genesis which begins with verse 4, chapter ii, contains an account of the creation of this earth in its temporal state. We magnify this point that our opponents may be assured there is no retreat possible to them from the consequences of their own statements and representations. It is now purposed to demonstrate that the Jehovistic narrative of creation contains not simply an account of the temporal formation of the visible universe, but that we find in it the account and the only one. The proof that can be produced to

substantiate this affirmation is ample and convincing. In presenting it facts which have already been introduced will have to be recalled, and considered at greater length.

The Apostle John informs us that Jesus Christ is the creator of the earth, and the identity of the Savior with the Jehovah of the Old Testament has been established. In the second section of Genesis, Moses makes mention of but one actor in the process of world formation. He says, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God (Jehovah) made the earth "and the heavens." No plurality of Gods is here mentioned, or even hinted at. On the contrary, he distinguishes from among all the Gods, one and one only God, whom he calls Jehovah, and ascribes to him alone the whole glory of the act of creation. Then, too, the very name by which Moses proclaims the creator precludes all argument in the case. The name Jehovah is not applicable to more than one God; but is the peculiar and special title of one sole and ony Being; for he says, Isaiah xlii, 8, "I am the Lord: (Jehovah) that is my nar ne." As there is but one Jesus Christ of the New Testament, so there is but one Jehovah of the Old. The Apostle John also states, as we find in the Scripture heretofore quoted from his gospel, that the world was created by one Being only, the Lord Jesus Christ.

*

I

That there are not many-not a plurality, but one only creator of all things visible is most concisely affirmed by the Lord himself in the following Scripture: "Thus saith the Lord. * am the Lord, (Jehovah.) "that maketh all things: that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth forth the earth by myself." Isaiah xliv, 24. See also chapters xlv, 12; xlvi, 1, 2, which read to the same effect; and other passages of like tenor may readily be found by our readers.

With such testimony in hand it matters but 1

which close

ttle that we may infer the truth, these passages of Scripture disfrom the fact that the new heavens

and the new earth which are to be created hereafter, shall be formed by one God only, who is Jehovah, as we learn from Isaiah lxv, 13, 17. Now were this cause to be tried according to the evidence, by a sworn jury of intellgent men, who could not anticipate the verdict as one wholly sustaining the claims which have been made? Who but a paid Judge, or a packed jury, in the face of such direct and abundant evidence could decide adversely to the proposition that the Jehovistic narrative of temporal creation contains the only account we possess of that event?

Passing over the unimportant circumstance that Moses is the author of both narratives, we find that the only significant point in which they agree is in a similarity of names applied to the things created. In both accounts these are called the heavens and the earth; yet upon this slight evidence, which does not value a particle unless we suppose there never were, or could be any heavens and earth excepting those that can be "taken in" by mortal eye, we have been forced by an apostate to Christianity to believe that the two discrepant and contradictory accounts refer to the same act of creation; and this too in spite of the testimony of Jehovah himself, which shows conclusively that they cannot.

In order to exhibit the true status of this case, we will suppose a person to be in possession of a valid deed, which conveys to himself certain lands that can be definitely located. This deed is properly signed by the grantor whose name is so peculiar that no one else has ever been known by it. The individual thus distinguished testifies directly that he himself, and himself alone, signed the document, and two most reputable witnesses corroborate this statement. He further affirms that prior to the time when the lands were granted away, no one was either directly or indirectly, associated with himself in their possession. But now the grantees are required to prove the legality of their claim to those particular lands, for another deed, unquestionably valid also, has been discovered, and certain parties are claiming

the lands in question under it. An examination of this deed discloses the fact that it is signed by a number of persons who collectively subscribe themselves, "Several Gentlemen;" not one of whom establishes his individual identity. The parties in possession of the second deed claim that judgment should be rendered in their favor, because the person who signed the first one is unquestionably a gentleman, also, and because both accounts convey properties which are in each known by the common name of "lands" and in one of the deeds by such name only. The second claimants enter the plea, also, that if their grant does not cover the lands, so definitely described in the deed to the first party, they do not know where to find their property at all. What judge would not dismiss these latter claimants with a deserved reprimand for presuming to intrude a case so hopeless upon his attention. He would inform them that their deed is either fraudulent, or else covers some lands different from those held by virtue of another deed, for the documents are respectively signed by distinct and separate parties; for "Several Gentlemen" are not identical with "One Gentleman," nor can a particular Mr. A. be the several unknown persons indefinitely pointed out as X, Y, and Z.

In practical cases of contested rights where the facts involved are similar to our supposed case, law, equity, and common sense demand that a decision be rendered in favor of the first party, who has been made to represent the truth that Jehovah, alone, is the sole creator of the World; and consequently the second section of Genesis is the only account we have of the formation of the visible earth, and all others which presumably refer to the same event, but which directly contradict it, must be ignored. Through inspired and detailing facts relating to creation, they must narrate events which transpired when some creation, distinct from this visible and temporal one was made.

Is it not remarkable that in the lengthy discussion, which has been carried on, without intermission, by so many of the

learned expounders of sectarian principles on one side and the champions of science on the other, respecting the accuracy of the Bible genesis, none of the former have even seemed to suspect that two discrepant and contradictory accounts of a creation can not possibly, if we admit the inspiration of both, refer to the same act of world formation; but must refer to different acts. In other instances where we find contradictory statements between two narratives which apparently describe one and the same act or event, these very interpreters of sacred history assure us that two distinct and separate transactions must be affirmed. They are now invited to swallow the dose which themselves have compounded for their infidel opponents. Could they discard the absurd doctrines of a trinity in unity, and see how it is impossible that three or more Gods can be one God, and one God three Gods? Could they perceive that the Father and the Son are not identified, but that each has a separate and absolute individuality, long ago they would have demonstrated the very truths which are herein affirmed of the Jehovistic narrative of creation and of the Elohistic also.

It is now purposed to subject these respected accounts to a more extended investigation, in order to determine to what extent they supply us with corroborative evidence of the truth of the important conclusions that have been reached already. It is not admitted that this is not substantiated by the facts which have been offered heretofore, but in a question so important as the one being discussed, it is desirable that no valuable arguments be omitted. When these are all presented our readers will perceive that geological infidelity is simply beating the air when it presumably assails Genesis with the demonstrated facts of science. When the foolish pastime becomes wearisome, some labor that will benefit mankind may be undertaken instead thereof. Sometimes when things are in a snarl, we get the tangles out more readily by working from the "other end," and in the matter before us, instead of beginning further investi

gation with Genesis i, 1, a commencement will be made again at the second narrative of creation, which starts out as follows: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." A literal rendering of the Greek in the Septuagint reads thus: "This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth when it took place in the day the Lord God made the heaven and the earth." This translation, being a literal one of the most ancient version of the original Hebrew, is more likely than the English of St. James' translation, to disclose the truth.

Notice in the first place Moses says this is the book which contains the account of the generation of the heaven and the earth, etc. We must remember that the word "book" was not used in the days of Moses in the same sense that now attaches to it. Fragmentary portions of an individual's writings, which we consider as simply chapters, or sections, were anciently regarded as books, until they were collated and arranged in

a

more connected form. In reality there were no "books" in the days of Moses, but written records were kept upon separate rolls or sheets of papyrus, or other material. Now we can very easily imagine the first account of creation recorded on one such roll or sheet, and when the second sheet was used, upon which to write another and different account of some other creation, the writer felt himself obliged to warn his readers not to confound the two narratives, and this he does by prominent use of the word "this." Admitting for the sake of the argument that Genesis does contain two accounts of two separate acts of creation, at once we perceive the neces

sity for the use of "this," or of some other word or words equally significant as a mark of distinguishment. Now reversing the argument; the mark of distinction between the two accounts being so apparent, what possible necessity can exist for such discrimination between them if both refer to the same creative act. The plea of a separate authorship for the two narratives, is the best argument, which infidels can produce to neutralize the force of this showing, and that question will be considered in another portion of this article. It is not particularly necessary that we presume the two narratives of creation were written in separate "books." The argument will lose none of its effectiveness if they were originally recorded on one single sheet. For it is then manifest that the word "book" has the simple signification of chapter or section. When an author opens a new chapter in a book, and begins by saying, this is the chapter which narrates the history of Washington, for instance, we do not suspect for a moment that his pages will be devoted to events which concern none but Jefferson, Franklin and Adams.

So too when Moses writes this is the chapter of my writings which records certain events in the life of Jehovah, we can not think he intends to tell us what other Gods have done. We draw a well defined line of distinction between the act of Jehovah and the acts of the Gods; and so clearly is this line drawn in point of fact, that the inspired penman could not write the history of the creation effected by Jehovah in immediate connection with that which was wrought out by the Gods, but was obliged to write a separate book for each party and, for our especial benefit has left a record that he did so. T. W. Brookbank.

full

was

Larz

RED

AH-PEAH-LUTAH (Red Cloud) is a Blood Dakota or Sioux Indian. He born near the present site of Fort mie about 1824. His father, whose

CLOUD.

name he bears, was head chief of the Ogalala tribe of the Dakota Confederacy or Nation, comprising seven tribes. Red Cloud being a younger son, his older