positive terms.

Or, perhaps, instead of repelling such groundless accusations, and explaining such far-fetched and sublimated difficulties, they will prefer to pass them by in silent contempt; feeling too much self-respect and consciousness of integrity of motive, purity, and correctness of principle, and orthodoxy of doctrine, to meet attacks and insinuations coming in a manner so low, that it could scarcely be lower, and in a spirit so hostile and captious, that, in the reply, meekness and candor would be sacrificed to bigotry and prejudice, and argument, explanation, and testimony, would not only be rejected, but perverted, and in the result worse than thrown

away.

St. Louis, April 19, 1839.

For the Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review.

PROFESSOR BUSH'S NOTES ON GENESIS

Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Genesis. By GEORGE BUSH, A. M., Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Literature, New-York City University. THE introduction to this work is valuable. It contains, in a small compass, and in the usual perspicuous style of the author, a large amount of interesting information. We would refer especially to the account of the early versions of the Bible. The comparative merits of the Targum of Onkelos, that of the Pseudo Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Targum, are shown by giving translations from each, and placing them in juxtaposition with the English translation. The reader can thus judge for himself, even from the brief specimens furnished, of the degree of value to be attached to these versions.

As it respects the translation so well known under the appellation of the Vulgate, the following remarks will no doubt tend to remove any unfavorable prepossessions against that work, in consequence of its "having been officially authenticated by the council of Trent, and made the standard of ultimate appeal" by the Roman Catholic Church. Prof. Bush here quotes from Campbell. Prelim. Dissert. X., part 3,

sec. 6.

"It is no further back than the sixteenth century since that judg ment was given in approbation of this version, the first authoritative declaration made in its favor. Yet the estimation in which it was universally held throughout the western churches was, to say the least, not inferior, before that period, to what it is at present. And we may say with truth, that though no judicious Protestant will think more favorably of this translation on account of their verdict, neither will he on this account think less favorably of it. It was not because this version was peculiarly adapted to the Romish system that it received the sanction of that synod, but because it was the only Bible with which the far greater part of the members had, from their infancy, had the least acquaintance. There were but few in that assembly who understood either Greek or Hebrew: they had heard that the Protestants, the new heretics, as they called them, had frequent recourse to the original, and were beginning to make versions from it; a practice of which their own ignorance of the original made them the more jealous. Their fears being thus alarmed, they were exceedingly

anxious to interpose their authority, by the declaration above mentioned, for preventing new translations being obtruded on the people. On the whole, therefore, we ought not to consider the version in question as either better or worse for their verdict. It is not intrinsically calculated to support Romish errors and corruptions, nor ought it to be regarded as the exclusive property of that Church. It is the legacy of the earliest ages of Christianity to the universal Church, much older than most of the false doctrines and groundless ceremonies which it has been brought to countenance."

We think it due to a work elaborated with so much care, and combining so large an amount of research and critical acumen, as Professor Bush's does, to notice, with some particularity, a few items in the author's extended exposition of the Book of Genesis; not with the intention of discussing mooted points, but rather to direct the attention of our readers to them, and to compare them with the views of others on the same subjects. Our time and limits will not, however, allow us to do the justice to the work in this respect which may be thought due to it.

In the first verse of Genesis, as to the word *77, created," Prof. Bush thinks "it is a matter rather of rational inference than positive affirmation, that the material universe was created out of nothing."

He founds his opinion upon the use of the word in other places. He adduces evidence from the use of the word in every other instance in Scripture except this, to show that the import of the term is twofold. 1. The production or effectuation of something new, rare, and wonderful; the bringing something to pass in a striking and marvellous manner. 2. The act of renovating, remodelling, or reconstituting something already in existence.

Upon this point, Dr. A. Clarke says, "Created," "Caused that to exist which, previously to this moment, had no being. The rabbins," he adds, "who are legitimate judges in a case of verbal criticism on their own language, are unanimous in asserting that the word bara expresses the commencement of the existence of a thing; or its egression from nonentity to entity. It does not, in its primary meaning, denote the preserving or new forming things that had previously existed, as some imagine; but creation in the proper sense of the term, though it has some other acceptations in other places."

To this we subjoin the opinion of Prof. Stuart on the meaning of this word in this place; which he thinks, and as it seems to us justly, is mainly to be determined by its connection with what follows,

"Some have supposed that the word *, in verse 1, means only to dispose of, to arrange, to form, viz., out of materials already existing, to reduce to order. But verse 2 shows that no mere arrangement or disposition of matter can be intended by ; for after the action implied by this word had been performed, the earth still remained in a chaotic state. That the original matter of the heavens was in a similar condition is evident from verses 6-8, and 14-19. All order and arrangement plainly seems to be considered, by the writer of Gen. i, as having been affected after the original act of

creation."

Prof. Bush, however, in opposition to these authorities, thinks that, in all the various parallel passages cited by him in which the

word is used, "the act implied by the word is exerted upon a preexisting substance, and cannot therefore strictly signify to create out of nothing. Allowing then," he concludes, "that the materials, the primordial elements of the heavens and the earth, were brought into existence at an indefinitely prior period, the term 'create' may be understood as expressing the action of the almighty Agent upon the rude chaotic mass, in molding and arranging it into its present comely order and grand and beautiful forms. This view of the writer's language is undoubtedly more consistent with ascertained geological facts than any other, and it is certainly desirable to harmonize, as far as possible, the truths of revelation with those of natural science."

Were we to hazard a conjecture of our own on this point, it would be as we hinted above, to determine its meaning by the connection it sustains to what immediately follows. Allowing the word to be correctly used, as it undoubtedly is, in the sense attached to it in those passages quoted by Prof. Bush in support of his position, yet it seems hardly proper to call these passages strictly parallel passages; for the word could be used but once, unless in a precisely similar connection, to imply the creation of something out of nothing. The whole of what we call the present existing material creation was produced by one act of almighty power. Various combinations have taken place since in the different strata of the earth, perhaps, and in its form; but the act of creation was in itself one and complete. The word therefore could be used but once in its original sense; and that this was as the creation of something out of nothing, seems clear from the fact, as Prof. Stuart has observed, that after the action implied by this word the earth still remained in a chaotic state, as appears from verse 2.

It might also be proper to inquire, if the original word, translated create," merely means the modelling of pre-existing matter, is not the plastic power of the Spirit of God, which moved upon the face of the waters, abridged? If " the term 'create' expresses the action of the almighty Agent upon the rude chaotic mass," what, we ask, are we to understand by "the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters," when "the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep?"

We refer the reader to Prof. Bush's hypothesis, in his notes on chap. i, verse 14, to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between the creation of light on the first day, with the fact that the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day. Our author supposes that the sun was actually created on the first day; but, as during that and the two subsequent days, "the globe of earth was surrounded by a dense mass of mingled air and water, the rays of the sun would be intercepted: but that on the fourth day the clouds, mists, and vapors were all cleared away, and the atmosphere made pure and serene; the sun of course would shine forth in all his splendor, and to the eye of our imagined spectator would seem to have been just created; and so at night of the moon and stars."

In connection with this subject, we quote the following from Rev. G. R. Gleig's admirable "History of the Bible;" published, it is true, in a cheap and popular form by the Harpers, but none the less

solid and learned on that account; a work which richly deserves to be in the hands of every student of the Bible:—

"Perhaps there is no translation of equal magnitude, from a dead to a living language, which exhibits errors so few in number, or so unimportant in their consequences, as our authorized version of the Bible; yet even that great work, admirably executed though it be, is not in every particular perfect. The account given there, for example, of the division of night from day, and the final arrangement of the heavenly bodies as parts of our solar system, is not so accurate as it might be, and has, we believe, in more than one instance, excited uneasy feelings in the mere English reader. Thus, after having been informed, at verses 3, 4, and 5, of the first chapter of Genesis, that the creation of light took place on the first day of the cosmogony, we are told, in verses 14, 15, and 16, that God, on the fourth day, said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven,' &c.; and that God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and that he made the stars also.' There unquestionably seems to be a contradiction here; for if light was formed on the first day, it could not be formed on the fourth day also; while the discoveries of modern science altogether preclude the notion, that either the sun or the moon is, in any sense of the expression, a light.

"The truth, however, is, that the original Hebrew falls into no such mistakes as those incurred by our translators. The words employed by Moses, at verses 3 and 14 of this chapter, are totally different the one from the other; the former only expressing the matter of light, the latter signifying simply an instrument by which light is supported or dispensed; and hence the difficulty of reconciling Scripture with itself, and with the discoveries of modern science, attaches only to the English translation. Light existed from the first day, though divided, as has been shown, and shed in portions, as it were, over each globe in our system; whereas on the fourth a centre for these scattered rays was established, and they were made to roll or collect themselves around it. Thus, the sun became a great light-bearer, or light-dispenser, immediately and directly; whereas the moon, though an opaque body, acted a similar part toward this earth by reflection."

The following reference to what seems rather an ambiguous phraseology as to the creation of fowl, as if fowl was created first out of water, and then, as it is stated in chap. ii, verse 19, out of the ground, clears up the obscurity. Prof. Bush proposes, that, instead of reading," and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven,' that we vary slightly the translation in the present passage, which the original will well admit, and read, and let the fowl fly above the earth.' The object of the writer here seems to be to specify the respective elements assigned as the habitation of the fishes, and the flying things. In the other passage the design is to acquaint us with the source from whence the beasts and birds originated. They are probably here mentioned together from the similarity of the elements in which they live, and of the motions by which they pass through them.”

As to the topography of Eden, the Professor has treated largely. We shall only direct the attention of the reader to this point.

However he may differ in his views with the conclusion arrived at, that "Eden embraced the fairest portion of Asia, besides a part of Africa," still he will be pleased with tracing the ground in company with so clear and ingenuous a literary traveler.

The

Prof. B. possesses a peculiarly felicitous talent in illustrating the meaning of Scripture, by comparing one passage with another. This, it is true, seems to be an easy task; yet it requires skill, judgment, and patience, together with a familiarity with the original, to deduce all the good that may be obtained from this source. following remarks on the passage, "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day;" which in its English dress sounds so oddly to the ear, will be read with pleasure. "The epithet walking' is to be joined, not with 'Lord,' but with 'voice,' as it is in the original the same word with that used to signify the sound of the trumpet upon Mount Sinai, Exod. xix, 19, and when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, (Heb. walked.') A voice may be said to walk or go when it increases in intensity, waxing louder and louder. The same term is applied to any thing which is capable of increasing in degree, as to a constantly brightening light, Prov. iv, 18: The path of the just is as the shining light which shineth more and more (Heb. walketh) to the perfect day :' and to the sea excited by a storm, Jonah i, 11: 'For the sea wrought, (Heb. walked,) and was tempestuous;' i. e., became increasingly tempestuous. See note on Gen. xxvi, 13."

But while the notes on Genesis are critical, and as such of great value to the Biblical student, they are also practical, and thus adapted to general utility. As a specimen of the latter quality, we make the following somewhat extended extract in relation to the fall of our first parents. The observations are as forcible as they are lucid and consistent. They are founded upon chap. iii, ver. 6: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise; she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat."

As it respects the above transaction, Prof. B. says, " In regard to both it was their own free and unconstrained act; for however Satan may incite, he cannot compel. They could lay the blame of their disobedience upon no one but themselves; and looking to themselves, they could find no apology for their crime. By one rash act committed against an express command, and under circumstances of the highest enormity, they lifted the flood-gate which has poured in a deluge of miseries upon the world. Besides the loss to themselves of the image and favor of God, remorse of conscience, expulsion from Eden, the curse of toil, sorrow, and sickness, and the sentence of death to body and soul; all the sins, sufferings, crimes, and woes which have afflicted the earth, in its countless millions of inhabitants, from that day to this, are to be traced to that transgression as their fountain-head. The limited grasp of the mind of man is not adequate to take in the length and breadth and fearful extent of the evil which has been thus entailed upon the human family-an evil running parallel with the present life, and reaching forward into an unmeasured eternity!-an event so awfully disastrous in its immediate and its remoter consequences, especially VOL. X.-July, 1839.

44