days; it would have disturbed the harmony of the whole.

In order to describe the origin of Paradise, Moses is obliged to recur to the creation of the plants on the third day. He does this by first describing in ver. 8 the condition of the earth on the third day before the creation of vegetation: "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." Rain and the care of man are the conditions now wanted to ensure the growth of plants; these conditions did not then exist, therefore plants could not spring up as they do now, and there must have been some other cause for the existence of the first plants.1

Ver. 6 goes on: "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground;' that is, by coming down in rain or dew. The ground was thus fitted to bring forth vegetation, and then followed the creation of the plants on the third day, as it is described in the Hexameron. This is not specially mentioned here, as that has been already done; only those details are supplied here which could not have been given in the first section without disturbing the narrative, but which are necessary in order to understand the second section. "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden," of course on the third day," and out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food."

Similarly Vosen, Das Christenthum, p. 757.

Then follows the second event, which is only just mentioned in the Hexameron, but which it was necessary to describe here in detail, the creation of woman. Of this I have already spoken.

In ver. 19, indeed, the creation of the animals is mentioned: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them." But the Hebrew may be also translated, "The Lord God had formed," etc. It is also well known that in Hebrew sentences are often grammatically co-ordinated which logically are subordinated. Instead of the above literal translation Jerome gives the following, which is true to the meaning: "When God Almighty had formed all the animals, He brought them to the man; or it might be even more clearly translated thus: "The Lord brought all the animals which He had created to the man." The creation of the animals is here only mentioned as a preliminary of the account here given of their being brought to the man. The second chapter therefore speaks of the creation of plants with reference to Paradise, of the creation of animals with reference to their naming by man, and also with reference to the connection of the latter incident with the creation of woman.

This, then, is the right connection between the two sections; the second is the continuation of the first, but in some ways it supplements it. No doubt this treatment of the subject-matter is peculiar, and it must seem somewhat remarkable to any one who is not acquainted with the manner in which the subject

matter is usually treated and handled in Genesis. The result, as you may have observed, is that the mode of expression and narration is occasionally strange to us, and it is sometimes obscure and difficult for the reader who is not accustomed to the style of Genesis. But let us compare with this the beginning of the next section. Chap. v. 1 seq. "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and female created He them; and blessed them and called their name Adam in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness after his image,"―i.e. a man like himself," and called his name Seth. And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years; and he begat sons and daughters. And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died," etc. The creation of man in the image of God, male and female, has been described in the first and second chapters together with the divine blessing of reproduction; the birth of Seth and even that of his son Enos has been recounted in the fourth after the history of Cain and Abel; and yet this is all recapitulated again in the fifth chapter, because it is necessary to make this chapter complete, as it is to contain a genealogical and also chronological review of the time between Adam and Noah.

It would have been possible to treat the subjectmatter differently; but we must take the narrative of Genesis as we find it, and there can be no doubt that Moses has expressed himself in a manner which is clear

to the unprejudiced and thinking reader, whatever we may think of his style and arrangement.1

Not only the difficulties in the way of a reconciliation between the Bible and science, but also those of exegesis are rather increased than diminished if we consider (as some have done in spite, or because of this) that the second chapter contains a second account of the creation different from and contradicting the first; or if we suppose that an account is given of a different animal and vegetable creation. I need not criticize this theory; that which I have been explaining to you can be justified exegetically, and in our further inquiries and in comparing the narrative of Genesis. with the accounts of natural science, we may leave the second section unnoticed, with the exception of one or two things which supplement the first.

Besides, most of the false interpretations of the second section are connected, as you probably know, with the series of attempts which, since the French physician Astruc first started them one hundred years ago, have been renewed with wonderful perseverance, to dissect Genesis, and to resolve it into a a series of fragments, or into several original records by different authors. It may be admitted by those who hold to the old theory of the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, which is supported by many good reasons, that the writings of many older authors have not only been used, but have also been wholly or in part incorporated in Genesis, without any, or without any material alteration. For instance, we might unhesitatingly admit

1 Cf. Oehler, Theologie des Alten Testamentes, Tübingen 1873, i. 77. A. Kohler, Lehrb. der Bibl. Geschichte A. T., Erlangen 1875, i. 23.

that at chap. ii. 4 a second writer, distinct from the author of the Hexameron, appears. But there are no imperative reasons for supposing this. The fact that in the Hexameron God is always called Elohim, but after chap. ii. 4 consistently Jehovah Elohim, is specially one which only the superficial writer would take to be a mark of double authorship. The two names Elohim and Jehovah, and other rarer names for God, may in many cases be used promiscuously; for instance, the same Hebrew writer might, for the sake of change or for other reasons use, as he liked, sometimes Jehovah and sometimes Elohim, if the two names for God came as easily to the Hebrews as, for instance, the two names Christ and the Saviour to us. But in many cases in Genesis the reason for using sometimes Elohim and sometimes Jehovah is easily seen, and a closer examination can only make us feel more reverence for the penetration and thoughtful description of the old Jewish historian. Elohim denotes a mighty, awful, supernatural Being; Jehovah, on the other hand, means God not exalted above the world, but condescending to the world, and especially to man, revealing Himself to man, and forming relations of alliance or friendship with man. It is therefore Elohim who creates the world by His word in the first chapter, but in the second chapter, when God condescends to man, places him in Paradise, gives him His commandment, and supernaturally guides and educates him, He is called Jehovah. And if the compound name Jehovah Elohim, which occurs but seldom, is used instead of the simple one Jehovah, the author of Genesis probably wishes to intimate that the Jehovah of