between clean and unclean beasts for their sacrifices, which they could only have done from revelation, we have strong reasons for concluding that God had appointed the time, as well as the manner of his sacrifices. But there are various other proofs of the observation of the seventh day; the sending forth the dove and raven from the ark on that day (Gen. viii. 10. 12); the week mentioned (Gen. xxix. 27.) as the time of the wedding-feast of Leah, a festival which we know from the book of Esther, and other sources, commonly lasted seven days; the seven days allotted to the mourning for the dead (Gen. 1. 10.), a custom which existed in after times also, (see Ecclus. xxii. 12) and passed to the Asiatics from the Jews, (see Amm. Marc. xiii. ad init. et Ambrose De fide Resur. p. 331.); the seven days observed by God after he had smote thè river to change its waters into blood (Exod. vii. 25.); the observation of the Sabbath in Egypt, which may be collected from observing that they departed out of Egypt on a Thursday, being the fifteenth of Nisan; the express mention of the Sabbath, and of a command to observe it in Exod. xvi. 23. where the Jews were ordered to collect no manna on the Sabbath, and the day is called "the rest of the Lord," a phrase which the Jews could not have understood, had they not been aware what event it was to commemorate. The expression in the fourth commandment," Remember, &c." an expression which clearly shows that no new commandment was then given, and which perhaps was particularly used, because Pharaoh had compelled them to do some of their task-work on the Sabbath (see Exod. v. 5.) though he had at first allowed them a day of rest; and the injunction about servants is introduced, because the Egyptians, by their example, had induced them not to be very care ful in this respect; it must further be observed here, that this com

mand is given expressly with a ference to the creation. We may learn from Hebrews iv. that "the sense we have put on Gen. ii. 3. is the same as that always put on it by the Jews. Philo thinks that the observation of the Sabbath suffered some interruption, but Aristobulus (apud Euseb. Præp. Ev. xiii. 12.) has cited many passages from the ancient poets, mentioning the seventh day as a festival, because all things were finished in it. When the Fathers, for instance Justin Martyr and Tertullian, deny that the patriarchs observed this day, they meant rather that they did not observe it in the rigid and scrupulous manner enjoined by the law, than that they neglected its solemnization altogether.

Having thus established the observation of the Sabbath, we have answered the second objection to the credibility of Moses, for he must have either forged a matter of fact, of which all could convict him, as all must know whether they had constantly observed the Sabbath or not; or else the creation, as he relates it, being so generally known, and the memorial of it celebrated every seventh day, must be an incontestible truth; and this will be shown farther, by pointing out the connection which the other matters in Genesis have with the creation, and promise of a Redeemer.

It may be right, before we ac tually enter on them, however, to observe (c. 8.) that Adam must have been convinced of his creation, both by his own reason and by the authority of God, who had revealed it to him; and even further than this, (c. 9.) he might have been confirmed in this persuasion by his own experience. The same persuasion, the children of Adam (c. 10.) would have reason to hold, by comparing what they would hear from their parents with the deductions of their own experience. But it is more important (c. 11.) to observe that they actually did hold this persuasion. This is proved (1.) by their

sacrifices which were a mark of their piety, and arose, without doubt, from their persuasion of the truth of the creation and the first promise. Again (2.) Eve, we are told, gave a name to her first-born, referring to the promise of a Redeemer, and, thinking that this first fruit of her body was to be the atonement for the sin of her soul, she called him, Cain," because she had gotten a man from the Lord. It was the notion that he was the promised seed of the woman which caused Cain's anger to rise so vehemently against his brother, when Abel's sacrifice was received more favour ably by God than his own, which, perhaps excited a fear in his mind that he was rejected from this honour. (3.) The name which Eve, gave her next born had a plain re-, ference to this belief. She called, him Seth, "because God hath ap pointed me another seed," instead, of Abel, who was dead, and Cain, who was rejected. The rabbis un derstood this of the Messiah (see R. Tanchuma Rabboth, fol. 27. col. 2, page 23.) The hope that in their race the Messiah was to come, probably was the cause of their parti cular attention to religion, and their

It is well known to most of our rea

ders, doubtless, that there are great dis pates as to the rendering of this passage, which is MAN WIN The

difficulty consists in the two last words (Eth-Jehovah) which our translators have rendered from the Lord." But (we speak with a desire to be corrected) we do not know any passage where so de cidedly signifies from, as to justify its being rendered so in a doubtful passage; and Parkhurst justly observes, that almost universally where two nouns with this particle between them, come after a verb, they are considered as in apposition. If this doctrine be true, we must translate with Schmidius (Coll. Bibl. i. p. 155.) “ I have gotten a man which is the Lord," though we need not coincide with him in thinking that Eve fully understood the promise, and only gave this name to her son with reference to the future Messiah. At least, we may observe, that her mistake prevailed among the patriarchs. the shake you

separation from the race of Cain: (4.). We know, from the example of Enoch, that the race of Adam maintained a religious worship, and this as we have shown, implies belief in the creation and the promise. (5.) The polygamy of Lamech, may, not improbably, be considered as a proof of this persuasion. God had threatened to punish the race of Cain sevenfold; they understood this as limiting the punishment to seven generations, and, after this, Lamech might indulge a hope that the accomplishment of the promise would return to the race of the eldest born. Accordingly, to secure a race to himself, he affected polygamy. And it is also observable, that after this time, the race of Seth intermarried with that of Cain, as, if to confirm their own title to the promise. The sin of Lamech cannot be justly made an objection to this supposition, as, from converse with the race of Seth, and the comparatively recent date of the promise, he must have known of it. (6.) About the same time, Lamech declared by the name he gave his son (Noah), his hope that› he might be the promised Redeemer

י!

In c. 12. it is proved that Noah the promise. It seems impossible was persuaded of the creation and to suppose otherwise, as he was

No one can doubt the words of Lamech (Gen. v. 29.) v which expressly mention the curse, allude also to the promise; but opinions have been very dif ferent as to the method of explaining thent. The mere ending of the curse on the ground-the invention of agriculture by Noah, as virtually ending it-the ending of the old world, and the consequent rest of every thing in it-the delight of parent at the birth of his son-have all been proposed as solutions, and by respectable names. Schmidius, however, comes near Allix, understanding that the words "He shall comfort us," mean

his seed, &c." as Gen. xii. S.; and Pfeiffer, Dub. Vex. p. 56. altogether coins cites in it. In Pfeiffer may be found the above opinions, ascribed to their respective authors

600 years old at the deluge, and his father Lamech had conversed with Adam and his children, being fifty-six years old when Adam died. Methuselah, his grandfather, died the year of the deluge, and was 343 years old at the death of Adam. From them he must have heard the whole history of the world. He must have known that every one whom he saw was derived from Adam. He must have observed the hatred between the families of Cain and Seth, and inquired into its cause; we know that he offered sacrifice, and that fire from heaven consumed it, which must have given him a firm belief in the divine promises, as must also the cessation of the deluge, according to the declaration of God. The same arguments in some degree may be applied to the children of Noah (c. 13.) who were 100 years old at the deluge, and must therefore have conversed long with Methusalem, and others of their ancestors in the Old World, and have been accustomed to frequent the religious assemblies and observe every Sabbath in the family of Seth; but besides this, the sin of Cham shows his knowledge of the promise, though not his belief of it. That it was not a mere piéce of irreverence to his father is shown by considering that the father cursed him in the person of his son, not merely in his own. The account given us of Cham represents him as a prophane person, deeply tinctured with the maxims of Cain and his posterity, and seems to hint that he, supposing the promise frustrated by the death of Abel, or altogether false, made his father's nakedness an object of mockery, as if he were incapable of contributing to the accomplishment of the promise by raising up more seed. The curse denounced by Noah against the posterity of Cham, which were indeed almost exterminated by Joshua, is heavier than we can suppose the Patriarch would utter against his son simply for irreverence towards

him, but, being a rejection of his race, is well adapted to the crime of disbelieving that a Redeemer was to rise up from the stock of his father. Again, (c. 14.) supposing these things known to Noah and his children, they must also have been known to their posterity. Abraham and Isaac even saw Shem and his children, who were unquestionable witnesses of what had passed before and since the flood. That Noah andTM his children, at least Shem and Japhet, would meet to observe the Sabbath, is clear, and that they would explain the cause of their so doing. Their whole story would be confirmed by the preservation of the ark, by the facility with which Abraham and his contemporaries would deduce their descent from Noah, and by the length of men's lives, even after the flood, which would make it difficult to impose a forgery on them; by the quarrel between the families of Cham and his brothers, the cause of which would be known. The remembrance of this quarrel, and the particular sin of Cham, was in fact kept up in Assyria, (see Lucian, de Dea Syra, p. 1069.) and also by the symbol of Baalberith, the god of the Sichemmites, who were descended from Cham, (see Judg. viii, 23. ix. 8. Talm. Hieros. fol. ii. col. 4. and. gloss. in h. 1. et Avodazara, c. iii. fol. 43. col. 1.)

Probably the many disgusting, parts of the religion of the Canaanites which called forth the anger of God on the priests of Baal, and the people of Canaan, had reference to this crime of Cham.

Having now brought the traditions of the creation and promise down to the time of Abraham, it must be next shown (c. 15.) that his posterity, till the time of Jacob, also had received them. Of course the religion practised by Abraham, implied their truth, and this might be enough to prove the point, but we have one strong fact on the subject. Lot might naturally conceive himself

distinguished from the rest of Shem's posterity, by having been called with Terah and Abraham, and therefore perhaps possessing the privilege of fulfilling the promise of the Redeemer in his race. The incest committed with him by his daughters, seems to show this in the strongest manner. They saw their mother dead, they knew that the Canaanites had no share in the promise, and therefore could not marry them, and they thought that the only way of fulfilling the promise in their father's race must be by committing incest with him. We may observe that they are represented as having walked chastely in Sodom, that they contrived the matter together, not in secret and separately as they would have done had their motive been only a licentious one, and that so far from being ashamed of an action in itself so eriminal, they gave their children names which were to hand the remembrance of it down to posterity. Accordingly we find that the two peoples descended from them, the Moabites and Ammonites, assumed a superiority over the descendants of Abraham as being descended from an elder son of Terah. Hence the Moabites sent for Balaam to decide the difference between them and the Israelites as to the right of the promised blessing. When Ruth, the Moabitess, says to Naomi, "Thy Thy God shall be my God, and thy people my people," this implies a renouncing of the pretensions of her own people, and acquiesces in the justice of those of the Israelites.

Again, the violent fear which Sarah had lest her husband should die childless, which led her even to deliver her servant to Abraham, surely had a reference to this. The grief which Rebecca felt at her own barrenness, and the contention of the wives of Jacob about his company, shew the impression on their minds, for it would be ridiculous to suppose that Moses would relate such mean and low particulars (to say no worse REMEMBRANCER, No. 25.

of them) unless he had great objects in view. Again, the expulsion of Ishmael, and the jealousy between Isaac and him, show the deep anxiety existing about this matter. We cannot conceive that the anger of Sarah against Ishmael for mockery, would have been so violent had it been childish sport and not a direct ridicule of his brother's rights, and an assertion of his own claim to the privilege of fulfilling the promise by the right of primogeniture.

The trick which Rebecca made use of to secure the blessing of the firstborn for Jacob, arose doubtless from her imagining that Esau had forfeited the promise by his sin and marriage with the Canaanitess. It may also be observed that Moses represents Esau as a profane person; and the reason of this may be not only that he sold his birthright, but 1st, that he showed his contempt for the promise of God by marrying a daughter of Heth; and 2nd, that he married a daughter of Ishmael, as if to revive the pretensions of that family. The method also of exacting a solemn oath, as Abraham did from Eliezer, and Jacob from Joseph, may be thought to have reference to the covenant; and the same obscure notion perhaps gave rise to the worship of Baal Peor. Lastly, God is called the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, on account of the particular promises with regard to the fulfilment of the original one which had been made to them.

It now only remains to show that the persuasion which we have traced down to the time of Jacob, lasted till the time of Moses also, and this may be collected from many circumstances.

1. Jacob's care after he was possessed of the promise not to take wife except out of his own family.

2. His polygamy, which doubtless had the same object as that of Lamech: and we see Rachel also like Sarah, adopting the son of a bond

wonian.

E

3. Among Jacob's children, we may trace the impression by observing, that the custom of taking the brother's widow to wife in order to raise seed for him, began among them; that the sin of Ouan derived its enormity from his acting against the belief of the promise by it: that Thamar, surprised Judah into incest because (see Theophyl, on St. Matt. c. i.) she had a vehement desire to have children out of a family from which the Messiah was to come. She had been a Canaanite, but like Ruth, had renounced the impiety of her kindred, when she embraced the religion and hopes of Jacob's family; and like Ruth, on this account, is particularly mentioned in our Saviour's genealogy. Again, we may trace this belief in the violent anger of the sons of Jacob against Joseph the firstborn of their father's favourite wife, who had not improbably like Isaac been brought up in hopes of the promise; and in the care which Jacob and his descendants took in the land of Egypt to have no intermixture with the Egyptians, the descendants of Cham. Perhaps too the care of Pharaoh to kill the Jewish children might arise from the boastings of the Jews as to the Messiah, as well as from an apprehension of their strength.

Moses, thongh not born in Joseph's life, was born only fifty-eight years after his death, and his father Amram lived long with Joseph. We have thus traced (c. 17.) the tradition of the creation, and the promise from Adam to Moses with the intervention of only seven persons, Adam, Methusalah, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Amram, Moses.

We ask then, whether after what has been said, any one can think it likely that Moses would venture to forge matters that must be so universally known, since every man could trace his pedigree to the flood, or even to Adam, as shortly as Moses could.

We have also shewn that many

actions strange in themselves, and considered by the Atheists as ridiculous, were only mentioned by Moses because they had a reference to the strong belief entertained of the Advent of Messiah.

We may remark too that those who preserved this tradition, were few and lived long; that it passed from father to son, where deceit is unlikely; that it referred for credence to well known facts; the pains of childbirth and Paradise before, and the preservation of the ark after the flood; that it supposes a public service fifty-two times a year, expressly to cause a general knowledge and remembrance of it; and also supposes both the exclusion of the elder brothers almost always, and the election of the younger, which must have excited controversy and tended much to preserve the truth; and likewise contentions between nations as to which should be the depository of it. If Moses could forge under these circumstances he must certainly have been the most daring impostor in the world.

In c. xviii. Allix contends that Moses in this book wrote not under the higher degree of inspiration, but merely under the direction of the Holy Spirit, there being no need for a revelation in things generally known, and Moses only having written such in this book. This he contends for, 1st, because it was probable that Moses would know all the particulars he has recorded, 2nd, because in the other books where God actually spoke to him, he informs us of it, 3rd, because Genesis is not divided into distinct sets of Revelations, as it probably would had Moses learnt these things directly from God and not by ordinary methods; 4th, because there is in Genesis internal evidence that it was written from tradition: namely, that the most remote facts, of which we should most wish a full account, are told in a very concise manner; that the narration become