Elohim] formed the man [the Adam] dust from the ground [the adamah]'. The meaning of the primary word is, most probably, any kind of reddish tint, as a beautiful human complexion | (Lam. iv. 7); but its various derivatives are applied to different objects of a red or brown hue, or approaching to such. The word Adam, therefore, is an appellative noun made into a proper one. It is further remarkable that, in all the other instances in the second and third chapters of Genesis, which are nineteen, it is put with the article, the man, or the Adam. It is also to be observed that, though it occurs very frequently in the Old Testament, and though there is no grammatical difficulty in the way of its being declined by the dual and plural terininations and the pronominal suffixes (as its derivative D, dam, blood, is), yet it never undergoes those changes; it is used abundantly to denote man in the general and collective sense-mankind, the human race, but it is never found in the plural number. When the sacred writers design to express men distributively, they use either the compound term, sons of men (DIN 2, benei adam), or the plural of N enosh, or N ish. The question arises, Was the uttered sound, originally employed for this purpose, the very vocable Adam, or was it some other sound of correspondent signification? This is equivalent to asking, what was the primitive language of men? That language originated in the instinctive cries of human beings herding together in a condition like that of common animals, is an hypothesis which, apart from all testimony of revelation, must appear unreasonable to a man of serious reflection. There are other animals, besides man, whose organs are capable of producing articulate sounds, through a considerable range of variety, and distinctly pronounced. How, then, is it that parrots, jays, and starlings have not among themselves developed an articulate language, transmitted it to their successive generations, and improved it, both in the life-time of the individual and in the series of many generations? Those birds never attempt to speak till they are compelled by a difficult process on the part of their trainers, and they never train each other.

Upon the mere ground of reasoning from the necessity of the case, it seems an inevitable conclusion that not the capacity merely, but the actual use of speech, with the corresponding faenity of promptly understanding it, was given to the first human beings by a superior power: and it would be a gratuitous absurdity to suppose that power to be any other than the Almighty Creator. In what manner such communication or infusion of what would be equivalent to a habit took place, it is in vain to inquire; the subject lies beyond the range of human investigation: but, from the evident exigency, it must have been instantaneous, or nearly so. It is not necessary to suppose that a copious language was thus bestowed upon the human creatures in the first stage of their existence. We need to suppose only so much as would be requisite for the notation of the ideas of natural wants and the most important mental conceptions; and from these, as germs, the powers of the mind and the faculty of vocal designation would educe new words and combinations as occasion demanded.

That the language thus formed continued to be the universal speech of mankind till after the deluge, and till the great cause of diversity [LANGUAGE] took place, is in itself the most probable supposition. If there were any families of men which were not involved in the crime of the Babel-builders, they would almost certainly retain the primeval language. The longevity of the men of that period would be a powerful conservative of that language against the slow changes of time. That there were such exceptions seems to be almost an indubitable inference from the fact that Noah long survived the unholy attempt. His faithful piety would not have suffered him to fall into the snare; and it is difficult to suppose that none of his children and descendants would listen to his admonitions, and hold fast their integrity by adhering to him: on the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose that the habit and character of piety were established in many of them.

The confusion of tongues, therefore, whatever was the nature of that judicial visitation, would not fall upon that portion of men which was the most orderly, thoughtful, and pious, among whom the second father of mankind dwelt as their acknowledged and revered head.

If this supposition be admitted, we can have no difficulty in regarding as the mother of languages, not indeed the Hebrew, absolutely speaking, but that which was the stock whence branched the Hebrew, and its sister tongues, usually called the Shemitic, but more properly, by Dr. Prichard, the Syro-Arabian. It may then be maintained that the actually spoken names of Adam and all the others mentioned in the ante-diluvian history were those which we have in the Hebrew Bible, very slightly and not at all essentially varied.

On the other hand, some of the greatest names in the study and comparison of languages maintain that the primeval language has not been anywhere preserved, but that fragments of it must, from the common origin of all, everywhere exist; that these fragments will indicate the original derivation and kindredship of all; and that some direct causation of no common agency has operated to begin, and has so permanently affected mankind as to establish, a striking and universally experienced diversity (Mr. Sharon Turner On the Languages of the World,' &c., in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, the volumes published in 1827 and 1834). We take this citation from Dr. Bosworth's AngloSaxon Dictionary, Pref. p. iii., where that eminent scholar and antiquary seems tacitly to intimate his concurrence with Mr. Turner, and subjoins,A gentleman, whose erudition is universally acknowledged, and whose opinion, from his extensive lingual knowledge and especially from his critical acquaintance with the Oriental tongues, deserves the greatest attention, has come to this conclusion; for he has stated, "The original language, of which the oldest daughter is the Sanskrit, the fruitful mother of so many dialects, exists no longer" (Prof. Hamaker's Academische Voorlezingen, Leyden, 1835).

Upon this hypothesis it will follow that a knowledge of the proper names of the first human family, and of all down to the times of Abraham, is absolutely unattainable; and that the Hebrew designations which we possess are not echoes of the

That men and other animals have existed from eternity, by each individual being born of parents and dying at the close of his period, that is, by an infinite succession of finite beings, has been asserted by some: whether they really believed their own assertion may well be doubted. Others have maintained that the first man and his female mate, or a number of such, came into existence by some spontaneous action of the earth or the elements, a chance-combination of matter and properties, without an intellectual designing cause. We hold these notions to be unworthy of a serious refutation. An upright mind, upon a little serious reflection, must perceive their absurdity, self-contradiction, and impossibility. To those who may desire to see ample demonstration of what we here assert, we recommend Dr. Samuel Clarke On the Being and Attributes of God; Mr. Samuel Drew's Essays; or an admirable work not known in a manner corresponding to its worth, Discourses on Atheism, by the Rev. Thomas Allin, 1828.

It is among the clearest deductions of reason, that men and all dependent beings have been created, that is, produced or brought into their first existence by an intelligent and adequately powerful being. A question, however, arises, of great interest and importance. Did the Almighty Creator produce only one man and one woman, from whom all other human beings have descended?-or did he create several parental pairs, from whom distinct stocks of men have been derived? The affirmative of the latter position has been maintained by some, and, it must be confessed, not without apparent reason. The manifest and great differences in complexion and figure, which distinguish several races of mankind, are supposed to be such as entirely to forbid the conclusion that they have all descended from one father and one mother. The question is usually regarded as equivalent to this: whether there is only one species of men, or there are several. But we cannot, in strict fairness, admit that the questions are identical. It is hypothetically conceivable that the Adorable God might give existence to any number of creatures, which should all possess the properties which characterize identity of species, even without such differences as constitute varieties, or with any degree of those differences. A learned German divine, Dr. de Schrank, thinks it right to maintain that, of all organized beings besides man, the Creator gave existence to innumerable individuals, of course in their proper pairs (Comm. in Gen. p. 69, Sulzbach, 1835). His reason probably is, that otherwise there would not be a provision of food : but whether the conjecture be admitted or not, it is plain that it involves no contradiction, and that therefore distinct races of men might have been created, differing within certain limits, yet all possessing that which physiologists lay down as the only proper and constant character, the perpetuity of propagation.

But the admission of the possibility is not a concession of the reality. So great is the evidence in favour of the derivation of the entire mass of human beings from one pair of ancestors, that it has obtained the suffrage of the men most com

anatomy and physiology. The late illustrious Cuvier and Blumenbach, and our country man Mr. Lawrence, are examples of the highest order. But no writer has a claim to deference upon this subject superior to that of Dr. J. C. Prichard. He has devoted a large work, which is still in the progress of publication, to this subject and others allied to it-Researches into the Physical History of Mankind, 3 volumes, and one more at least to come, 1836-1841: also another work, just completed-The Natural History of Man, 1842. In the Introductory Observations contained in the latter work we find a passage which we cite as an example of that noble impartiality and disregard of even sacred prepossessions with which the author has pursued his laborious investigation: I shall not pretend that in my own mind I regard the question now to be discussed as one of which the decision is indifferent either to religion or to humanity. But the strict rule of scientific scrutiny exacts, according to modern philosophers, in matters of inductive reasoning, an exclusive homage. It requires that we should close our eyes against all presumptive and extrinsic evidence, and abstract our minds from all considerations not derived from the matters of fact which bear immediately on the question. The maxim we have to follow in such controversies is, fiat justitia, ruat cælum. In fact, what is actually true, it is always most desirable to know, whatever consequences may arise from its admission.'

The animals which render eminent services to man, and peculiarly depend upon his protection, are widely diffused-the horse, the dog, the hog, the domestic fowl. Now of these the varieties in each species are numerous and different, to a degree so great, that an observer ignorant of physiological history would scarcely believe them to be of the same species. But man is the most widely diffused of any animal. In the progress of ages and generations, he has naturalized himself to every climate, and to modes of life which would prove fatal to an individual man suddenly transferred from a remote point of the field. The alterations produced affect every part of the body, internal and external, without extinguishing the marks of the specific identity. A further and striking evidence is, that when persons of different varieties are conjugally united, the offspring, especially in two or three generations, becomes more prolific, and acquires a higher perfection in physical and mental qualities than was found in either of the parental races. From the deepest African black to the finest Caucasian white, the change runs through imperceptible gradations; and, if a middle hue be assumed, suppose some tint of brown, all the varieties of complexion may be explained upon the principle of divergence influenced by outward circumstances. The conclusion may be fairly drawn, in the words of the able translators and illustrators of Baron Cuvier's great work:-We are fully warranted in concluding, both from the comparison of man with inferior animals, so far as the inferiority will allow of such comparison, and, beyond that, by comparing him with himself, that the great family of mankind loudly proclaim a descent, at some period or other, from one common origin.' (Animal Kingdom, with the Supplements of Mr. E.

Griffith, Col. Hamilton Smith, and Mr. Pidgeon, vol. i. p. 179).

Thus, by an investigation totally independent of historical authority, we are brought to the conclusion of the inspired writings, that the Creator hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth' (Acts xvii. 26).

We shall now follow the course of those sacred documents in tracing the history of the first man, persuaded that their right interpretation is a sure basis of truth. At the same time we shall not reject illustrations from natural history and the reason of particular facts.

It is evident upon a little reflection, and the closest investigation confirms the conclusion, that the first human pair must have been created in a state equivalent to that which all subsequent human beings have had to reach by slow degrees, in growth, experience, observation, imitation, and the instruction of others: that is, a state of prime maturity, and with an infusion, concreation, or whatever we may call it, of knowledge and habits, both physical and intellectual, suitable to the place which man had to occupy in the system of creation, and adequate to his necessities in that place. Had it been otherwise, the new beings could not have preserved their animal existence, nor have held rational converse with each other, nor have paid to their Creator the homage of knowledge and love, adoration and obedience; and reason clearly tells us that the last was the noblest end of existence. Those whom unhappy prejudices lead to reject revelation must either admit this, or must resort to suppositions of palpable absurdity and impossibility. If they will not admit a direct action of Divine power in creation and adaptation to the designed mode of existence, they must admit something far beyond the miraculous, an infinite succession of finite beings, or a spontaneous production of order, organization, and systematic action, from some unintelligent origin. The Bible coincides with this dictate of honest reason, expressing these facts in simple and artless language, suited to the circumstances of the men to whom revelation was first granted. That this production in a mature state was the fact with regard to the vegetable part of the creation, is declared in Gen. ii. 4, 5: In the day of Jehovah God's making the earth and the heavens, and every shrub of the field before it should be in the earth, and every herb of the field before it should bud.' The reader sees that we have translated the verbs (which stand in the Hebrew future form) by our potential mood, as the nearest in correspondence with the idiom called by Dr. Nordheimer the Dependent Use of the Future' (Critical Grammar of the H. Lang., vol. ii. p. 186; New York, 1841). The two terms, shrubs and herbage, are put, by the common synecdoche, to designate the whole vegetable kingdom. The reason of the case comprehends the other division of organized nature; and this is applied to man and all other animals, in the words, Out of the ground-dust out of the ground-Jehovah God formed them.' It is to be observed that there are two narratives at the beginning of the Mosaic records, different in style and manner, distinct and independent; at first sight somewhat discrepant, but when strictly examined, perfectly compatible, and each

|

one illustrating and completing the other. The first is contained in Gen. i. 1, to ii. 3; and the other, ii. 4, to iv. 26. As is the case with the Scripture history generally, they consist of a few principal facts, detached anecdotes, leaving much of necessary implication which the good sense of the reader is called upon to supply; and passing over large spaces of the history of life, upon which all conjecture would be fruitless.

In the second of these narratives we read, And Jehovah God formed the man [Heb. the Adam], dust from the ground [7787, haadamah], and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living animal' (Gen. ii. 7). Here are two objects of attention, the organic mechanism of the human body, and the vitality with which it was endowed.

The mechanical material, formed (moulded, or arranged, as an artificer models clay or wax) into the human and all other animal bodies, is called 'dust from the ground.' This would be a natural and easy expression to men in the early ages, before chemistry was known or minute philosophical distinctions were thought of, to convey, in a general form, the idea of earthy matter, the constituent substance of the ground on which we tread. To say, that of this the human and every other animal body was formed, is a position which would be at once the most easily apprehensible to an uncultivated mind, and which yet is the most exactly true upon the highest philosophical grounds. We now know, from chemical analysis, that the animal body is composed, in the inscrutable manner called organization, of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, lime, iron, sulphur, and phosphorus. Now all these are mineral substances, which in their various combinations form a very large part of the solid ground.

Some of our readers may be surprised at our having translated nephesh hhaya by living animal. There are good interpreters and preachers who, confiding in the common translation, living soul, have maintained that here is intimated the distinctive pre-eminence of man above the inferior animals, as possessed of an immaterial and immortal spirit. But, however true that doctrine is, and supported by abundant argument from both philosophy and the Scriptures, we should be acting unfaithfully if we were to affirm its being contained or implied in this passage. The two words are frequently conjoined in the Hebrew, and the meaning of the compound phrase will be apparent to the English reader, when he knows that our version renders it, in Gen. i. 20, creature that hath life;' in verse 24, 'living creature,' and so in ch. ii. 19; ix. 12, 15, 16; and in ch. i. 30, wherein there is life.'

6

This expression therefore sets before us the ORGANIC LIFE of the animal frame, that mysterious something which man cannot create nor restore, which baffles the most acute philosophers to search out its nature, and which reason combines with Scripture to refer to the immediate agency of the Almighty-in him we live, and move, and have our being.'

The other narrative is contained in these words, 'God created man in his own image: in the image of God created he him; male and female, created he them' (Gen. i. 27). The image (tselem, resemblance, such as a shadow bears to the object which casts it) of God is an expression which

translation of this grammatically difficult clause. In this brief description it is evident that much is implied beyond our power of ascertaining. The necessity and importance of the greatest hammers seem to be included. Considering these instances as representatives of many similar, we are confirmed in our belief that God not only gave to the earliest human families such knowledge as was requisite, but the materials and the instruments without which knowledge would have been

in vain.

Religious knowledge and its appropriate habits also required an immediate infusion: and these are pre-eminently comprehended in the image of God. On the one hand, it is not to be supposed that the newly created man and his female companion were inspired with a very ample share of the doctrinal knowledge which was communicated to their posterity by the successive and accumulating revolutions of more than four thousand years: and, on the other, the idea of their being left in gross ignorance upon the existence and excellencies of the Being who had made them, their obligations to him, and the way in which they might continue to receive the greatest blessings from him. It is self-evident that, to have attained such a kind and degree of knowledge, by spontaneous effort, under even the favourable circumstances of a state of negative innocence, would have been a long and arduous work. But the sacred narrative leaves no room for doubt upon this head. In the primitive style it tells of God as speaking to them, commanding, instructing, assigning their work, pointing out their danger, and showing how to avoid it. All this, reduced to the dry simplicity of detail, is equivalent to saying that the Creator, infinitely kind and condescending, by the use of forms and modes adapted to their capacity, fed their minds with truth, gave them a ready understanding of it and that delight in it which constituted holiness, taught them to hold intercourse with himself by direct addresses in both praise and prayer, and gave some disclosures of a future state of blessedness when they should have fulfilled the conditions of their probation.

An especial instance of this instruction and infusion of practical habits is given to us in the narrative: Out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air Hebr. of the heavens]; and brought them unto the man [Hebr. the Adam], to see what he would call them (Gen. ii. 19). This, taken out of the style of condescending anthropomorphism, amounts to such a statement as the following: the Creator had not only formed man with organs of speech, but he taught him the use of them, by an immediate communication of the practical faculty and its accompanying intelligence; and he guided the man, as yet the solitary one of his species, to this among the first applications of speech, the designating of the animals with which he was connected, by appellative words which would both be the help of his memory and assist his mental operations, and thus would be introductory and facilitating to more enlarged applications of thought and language. We are further warranted, by the recognised fact of the anecdotal and fragmentary structure of the Scripture history, to regard this as the selected instance for exhibiting a whole kind or class of operations or

|

[.

processes; implying that, in the same or similar manner, the first man was led to understand something of the qualities and relations of vegetables, earthy matters, the visible heavens, and the other external objects to which he had a relation.

The next important article in this primeval history is the creation of the human female. It has been maintained that the Creator formed Adam to be a sole creature, in some mode of androgynous constitution capable of multiplying from his own organization without a conjugate partner. This notion was advanced by Jacob (or James) Boehmen, the Silesian Theosophist,' and one very similar to it has been recently promulgated by Baron Giraud (Philosophie Catholique de l'Histoire, Paris, 1841), who supposes that the 'deep sleep' (Gen. ii. 21) was a moral fainting (défaillance), the first step in departing from God, the beginning of sin, and that Eve was its personified product by some sort of divine concurrence or operation. To mention these vagaries is sufficient for their refutation. Their absurd and unscriptural character is stamped on their front. The narrative is given in the more summary manner in the former of the two documents :-- Male and female created he them' (Gen. i. 27). It stands a little more at length in a third document, which begins the fifth chapter, and has the characteristic heading or title by which the Hebrews designated a separate work. This, the book of the generations of Adam. In the day God created Adam; he made him in the likeness [ demuth, a different word from that already treated upon, and which merely signifies resemblance] of God, male and female he created them; and he blessed them, and he called their name Adam, in the day of their being created ’ (ver. 1, 2). The reader will observe that, in this passage, we have translated the word for man proper name, because it is so taken up in the next following sentence.

as the

The second of the narratives is more circumstantial: And Jehovah God said, it is not good the man's being alone: I will make for him a help suitable for him.' Then follows the passage concerning the review and the naming of the inferior animals; and it continues- but for Adam he found not a help suitable for him. And Je hovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man [the Adam], and he slept: and he took one out of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place: and Jehovah God built up the rib which he had taken from the man into a woman, and he brought her to the man: and the man said, this is the hit; bone out of my bones, and flesh out of my flesh; this shall be called woman [ishah], for this was taken from out of man [ish]' (Gen. ii. 18-23).

Two remarkable words in this passage demand attention. 'Suitable for him' (17 chenegdo), literally, according to his front-presence, than which no words could better express a perfect adaptation or correspondence. That we render Dyon happaam, the hit, seems strange and even vulgar; but it appears necessary to the preservation of rigorous fidelity. The word, indeed, might have acquired a secondary adverbial meaning, like our English now, when very emphatical and partaking of the nature of an interjection; but there is only one passage in which that signification may be pleaded, and it is there repeated-now in the open place, now in the