i 
 
 iiili: 
 
 iii HI I; 
 
 ! 
 
 ::M 
 
 1 -' 
 i^iil!jljii;^:ilip;l!i;':!!!''^:-■^ '- ' ' ,i 
 
 !l!l!!!i!ll 
 ili!!ii!i!!ii|l!''l:!!!i!il 
 
 lililLlLllLu. 
 
Stom f^e fcifiratj? of 
 
 (jBequeat^e^ 6l? ^im to 
 t^e feifirari^ of 
 
 (prtnceton ^^eofogicaf ^emtnctrj 
 
 BS 1235 .D38 1874 
 
 
 Davies, Thomas Alfred, 
 
 1809 
 
 1899. 
 
 
 Genesis disclosed 
 
 
Genesis Disclosed 
 
 The Discovery of a Stupendous Error which 
 
 CHANGES THE EnTIRE JSTaTURE OF THE AC- 
 COUNT of the Creation of Mankind. 
 
 ALSO SHOWING 
 
 A DIVINE LAW, PLAINLY LAID DOWN, PEOVINa THE 
 
 EEROE THAT ALL MEN HAVE DESCENDED EEOM 
 
 ADAM AND EVE. 
 
 BY y 
 THOMAS A. DAYIES, 
 
 Author of 
 
 Cosmogont; ob, Mysteries op Creation: being ax Analysis op 
 
 Natural facts, Stated in the Hebraic Account of Creation, 
 
 Supported by the Development of Existing Acts op 
 
 God toward Matter. Answer to Hugh Miller, &c. 
 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 G. TV, Carlejon & Co., PuUishers. 
 
 LONDON: S. LOW, SON & CO. 
 M.DCCC.LSXIV. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874. by 
 
 G. W. CARLETON & CO., 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
 Stcreot'\T)ed at the 
 
 women's printing house, 
 
 56, 58 and 60 Park Street, 
 
 New York. 
 
c b i r a 1 c ir 
 
 The ^vef^ Living God, 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 Word. Command, and Law 
 
 REPRODUCTION "AFTER HIS KIND." 
 
 i Gen. i. 24. And god said. Let the Earth bring forth the Living 
 
 } Creature after his kind, &c. 
 
COI>3"TElSrT8. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface 9 
 
 Address to Readers 11 
 
 Introduction 23 
 
 Postulates to be proven . - . . - 36 
 
 First Postulate - 39 
 
 Second Postulate - - 59 
 
 Third Postulate - 84 
 
 Fourth Postulate - 104 
 
 Fifth Postulate - 123 
 
 The Stupendous Error - - - - - 139 
 
 Eliminations and Substitutions . - - . 147 
 Conclusion and Verification - - - - 150 
 
 Result - . - - 173 
 
 Eliminations Restored - - - - - 181 
 
 How the Bible has come to us - - - -199 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The Christian world have ever been in 
 search for the pure word of God, and we have 
 all supposed that it was contained in the 
 Bible now in common use. The discoveries 
 set forth in this work, however, will clearly 
 show the following astounding facts : That 
 the name of a class of human beings made in 
 the account of the creation has been elimi- 
 nated from that account, although that name 
 was specially given by God Himself. That 
 the creative name given in the same account 
 to the man put into the Garden of Eden, 
 although it occurs in the first eleven chap- 
 ters of the Hebrew Genesis thirty six 
 times, is not to be found in our Bible at 
 
 all, having been eliminated from the account 
 1* 
 
10 PEEFACE. 
 
 of creation as well as from the body of the 
 Bible. That a very important word has 
 also been eliminated, and another of oppo- 
 site meaning substituted, by which the class 
 of human beings above referred to has been 
 left out of the creative account, and thus 
 the whole nature and meaning of the 
 Genesis on this subject changed. That by 
 similar eliminations and substitutions the 
 flood has been made universal. It will not 
 be our object to trace back and find out 
 where these stupendous errors have arisen, 
 but to deal with them as they stand in our 
 King James Bible, the whole discussion 
 being confined to the misuse of two names 
 and one word. 
 
ADDRESS TO READERS. 
 
 The importance of tlie subject under 
 consideration would seem to call for some 
 explanation of the reasons wliicli have in- 
 duced me, as a private individual, to put 
 forth this work. There are those whose 
 callinsr it is to teach the word of Grod as 
 found in our Bible, and persons who read 
 are supposed to look to them for expla- 
 nations. And so it should be with the 
 ordinary reader, whose knowledge of the 
 subjects treated of cannot be as extensive 
 as those who make them a study and a 
 profession. It would then seem presumpt- 
 uous, at first sight, for any one to call in 
 question the current teachings and con- 
 structions held almost as a unit by the 
 
12 ADDRESS TO EEADERS. 
 
 divines of the day, and also by those of 
 former years. 
 
 But the subject treated of here is con- 
 fined to such narrow limits that it may be 
 regarded as a single point of construction 
 on a single subject, running, of course, 
 through the whole Bible — that point is 
 the introduction of the human family on 
 the earth, as recorded in the Hebrew 
 Genesis of creation. Divines and commen- 
 tators have regarded the Genesis as an 
 unexplained portion of the Scriptures, and 
 proclaimed that it contained mysteries 
 which mig^ht remain sealed to the human 
 mind forever. This is a challenge for in- 
 vestigation, for study, and for research, as 
 it cannot be supposed that the Book writ- 
 ten for our instruction was so worded that 
 it could not be understood by man, espe- 
 cially the historic portion of it. 
 
 About the year 1855, the encroachments 
 of Geologic Science (so called u|)on the 
 
ADDRESS TO EEADER9. 13 
 
 theory of tlie Mosaic Creation) were sucli, 
 tliat the Christian mind of the world Avas 
 almost taken ofE its balance, and divines 
 from the pulpit began to overthrow the 
 Genesis by adhering to and admitting that 
 the days of the Genesis were not days, but 
 extended periods of time indefinite in their 
 range, and subsequently preached Hugh 
 Miller as the second or only Moses. This 
 frightful condition of things, to my mind, 
 would eventually lead to the overthrow of 
 the Mosaic account and the Bible, in the 
 minds of a vast number of persons who 
 took the geologist's assumptions as facts, 
 and made out a creation by their mode, 
 and ignored the mode laid down in the 
 Mosaic account. 
 
 On the fii^t announcement of these 
 geologic theories, my mind was drawn to 
 the investigation of the Mosaic account of 
 creation, to see how this tide of unbelief 
 could be arrested by facts within the ac- 
 
14 ADDEESS TO EEADEES. 
 
 count itself. I had no knowledge of the 
 Hebrew, and the progress was slow. I 
 obtained, however, a verified copy of the 
 Hebrew, translated word for word, and the 
 result of the comparison between the two 
 revealed the fact that the King James 
 translation of the first twenty-five verses of 
 the first chapter has but one error in 
 translation ; that was found in the first 
 verse and the second word in our Bible. 
 The word " the " "In the beginning," etc., 
 is interpolated, and is not found in the 
 Hebrew. Nor did I discover any other 
 errors in the first chapter, except in the 
 26th and 27th verses, which relate to the 
 creation of mankind. A portion of these 
 errors run through the first eleven or 
 twelve chapters. 
 
 The result of these fifteen years of study 
 and investiojation into the Genesis was 
 published in 1857, under the title of 
 CosMoaoNY ; oe, The Mysteeies of Ceea- 
 
ADDEES3 TO READERS. 15 
 
 TiON : heing an analysis of tlie natural 
 facts stated in the Hehraic account of tlie 
 creation^ supported hy the development of 
 the existing acts of God towards matter. 
 I only \visli now that I had had at that 
 time more experience in writing, that I 
 could have di'essed up my ideas in a more 
 rhetorical form, and presented them more 
 acceptably to my readei's. In that work I 
 claimed that the Plebraic account of crea- 
 tion was in exact accordance with existino* 
 natm^al laws ; that it was scientific beyond 
 the knowledge of Moses, proving its inspi- 
 ration ; that no other mode of creation 
 could be assumed by which an equilibrium 
 would be maintained ; that is, every por- 
 tion should bear upon and support the 
 other as it does now. 
 
 In that work, too, I pointed out the 
 errors in translation, which bear upon and 
 support the construction of the unity of 
 the human family. Sixteen years have 
 
16 ADDEESS TO EEADERS. 
 
 since rolled around, but I have never been 
 able to banish the subject from my mind, 
 nor cease my investigations. During that 
 time I have sifted the subject till I think 
 I have arrived at the bottom ; for to my 
 mind it is now clear, and the Grenesis is no 
 longer a mystery on this point. Every 
 few years I would discover new points 
 and see what I had never seen before, and 
 every new discovery made more clear the 
 preceding ones. 
 
 I was educated to the belief that from 
 Adam and Eve the whole human family 
 had sprung, and that it was so stated in 
 the Bible. I did believe it, and should 
 have lived and died in that belief, had I 
 not accidentally run against the subject in 
 my investigations to disprove the geologic 
 theories of creation. At first I was per- 
 plexed because I could find nothing in the 
 Bible that said affirmatively that we have 
 all descended from one man or one pair, or 
 
ADDEESS TO READERS. 17 
 
 from a common parent. On the other 
 hand, I found thing's in the Hebrew that 
 confused the Enoflish Bible. I worked on 
 and on, comparing and unfolding ideas and 
 expressions, which, though I had read them 
 time and again for years and years, finally 
 untano^led themselves into a consistent elu- 
 cidation, "which I shall relate. 
 
 I have strongly debated with myself 
 whether this Biblical discovery should 
 reach the public eye for the present. Be- 
 cause the question of the unity of the race, 
 though still in contest between men, is 
 the construction and belief of most all 
 religious sects, and possibly should be as 
 long as they take the King James transla- 
 tion as their guide. Then there are so few 
 who can understand the difference between 
 an honest undertaking^ to correct errors of 
 ti'anslation of portions of the Bible, and an 
 infidel attack upon it, that very few would 
 wish to breast this feeling in a social 
 
18 ADDEESS TO EEADEKS. 
 
 community. He has to encounter preju- 
 dices, ignorance, time-worn education, set- 
 tled belief, and the natural uprising of feel- 
 ing in every one's breast, that he has been 
 found in error in what he believes as the 
 result of education and his own reading. 
 As an evidence of this, an old aunt of 
 mine, a good Christian, who read her Bible 
 regularly and usefully, said, when she 
 heard I had published my Cosmogony, 
 " Why, you don't say that Thomas has 
 been writing a book against the Bible ! " 
 
 This is as near as the majority of people 
 can judge of any such effort ; and therefore 
 the putting forth of such a work as this is 
 by no means a pleasant undertaking, even 
 though every word in it is true. The 
 following are the reasons which impel me 
 to it : The Genesis was written by Moses 
 in the Hebrew language, and every word 
 is the inalienable property of every human 
 being on the face of the whole earth, and 
 
ADDRESS TO EEADEES. 19 
 
 hence is my inalienable property. Whoever 
 has taken away one word of this treasure by 
 a misstated translation, has infringed those 
 rights and mine, and has given the world a 
 Bible made by men, and not the Bible 
 made by God. This remark may be 
 sweeping and severe, and needs explana- 
 tion. If a word or two or more were mis- 
 translated in such a manner as not to inter- 
 fere with the general meaning or the sense, 
 it would undoubtedly still be the word of 
 God, and should be received as such. 
 
 But if on an important subject, such as 
 the introduction of mankind into the crea- 
 tion, mistranslations occur in verse after 
 verse, and chapter after chapter, and an 
 important word left out from the Hebrew, 
 and another of entirely different meaning 
 inserted, by which means one principal act 
 of God in creation is eliminated and set 
 aside, and the whole meaning changed on 
 this subject, the remark holds good. I 
 
20 ADDEESS TO EEADEES. 
 
 shall show this to be so; and if I do, no 
 one can say aught but that I am striving 
 for the pure word of God, and claim it as 
 my inalienable right. If I do not do this, 
 I am j)repared to take the consequences, 
 socially and theologically, and the indigna- 
 tion of an offended God. To Him, on this 
 subject, I am responsible directly, and 
 measurably to my fellow-men and the Chris- 
 tian world. 
 
 I feel the responsibility of my jDosition 
 keenly, but I am impelled to it by a sense 
 of duty which accident has imposed upon 
 me. Knowing what I do, and having 
 found out what I have by an impulse ever 
 worrying and working upon my mind, I 
 should be guilty of a greater sin in keep- 
 ing it to myself and telling no man, than 
 if I should fail to do what I have said I 
 can do to reveal the hidden mysteries of 
 the Genesis, so long covered up to the 
 world. Furthermore, I committed myself 
 
ADDRESS TO READERS. 21 
 
 in my Cosmogony on tlie diversity of tlie 
 human family, having then discerned just 
 enough to make the assertion, but not suf- 
 ficient to prove beyond all peradventure 
 the fact from the Scripture itself. 
 
 Another reason why I put forth these 
 facts now, is this : No man living is free 
 from the possibility of a mistake. If I 
 should make one, it will be unintentional, 
 though rest assured that every point has 
 been weighed, reviewed, reweighed, anal- 
 yzed, compared, and subjected to every 
 conceivable test of which I am capable; 
 then laid aside, thousrht over a2:ain and 
 again, until every point has been worn 
 threadbare. Still I may make an anti-Bib- 
 lical, that is, an anti-Hebraic, statement, 
 and if I do, I will thank any one, Jew or 
 Gentile, Rabbi, Divine, or learned man, 
 to inform me, that I may correct it at once. 
 With these remarks, I consign the result of 
 my investigations to the kind consideration 
 
22 ADDKESS TO EEADEES. 
 
 of every one on tlie earth interested in tlie 
 word of God. 
 
 Your humble servant, 
 
 Thomas A. Da vies. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Some readers on taking up this work 
 will glance over tke headings, read ^ line 
 here and there, and then probably close it 
 up, sayiug to themselves, "This is the 
 emanation of some infidel mind attacking: 
 the Bible. I will not read it." Some will 
 read it out of curiosity, as they would a 
 novel, to see what the author has to say, 
 and how he says it. Some will skim over 
 it in order to say that they have seen it 
 and read it. While there are others who 
 will be deeply interested in the subject, 
 and read attentively with unbiassed minds, 
 and with a view of getting at the facts 
 stated. 
 
 No one need expect to understand the 
 
24 INTEODUCTION. 
 
 problem by a casual reading, unless the 
 author has greater success than he expects 
 in presenting the facts in a clear light, 
 for the whole is a connected chain of evi- 
 dence, one link of which if left out, its 
 unity is lost. Then, too, there is a diffi- 
 culty in the way of ready apprehension. 
 It is not like presenting a new subject 
 where the reader is prepared to take in an 
 idea because it is new. One set of ideas 
 grounded in education and belief are to be 
 eradicated, and a new set of ideas substi- 
 tuted in their stead. The reader's mind 
 must be prepared to receive facts because 
 they are facts, and if he does not find them 
 so, to reject them altogether. 
 
 We have all been educated to the belief 
 that the whole human family have de- 
 scended :from Adam and Eve. This idea 
 has been grounded in our minds by educa- 
 tion, lisped in youth from the catechism, 
 and continued in oft-repeated instruction 
 
INTEODUCTION. 25 
 
 from the pulpit. While the world Avas 
 less informed than it is now, it was received 
 without mental reservation. Education, 
 observation, and the developed acts of God 
 in this direction, and the persistent repro- 
 duction of different kinds of peoples, have 
 stimulated inquiry, and serious doubt has 
 seized upon many minds whether this was 
 so, and if not, where the difficulty lay, and 
 where it originated. 
 
 This doubt in the minds of many has 
 resolved itself into open declarations, and 
 such declarations have been supported ])y 
 scientific proofs, quite satisfactory to many, 
 while others have attempted the same 
 proof on Scriptural grounds, based j^artly 
 on the Hebrew and partly on the King 
 James translation ; so that the contest be- 
 tween the constructionists of the unity of 
 the race and their opponents, has been 
 carried on for years with great sj)irit. 
 
 Work after work and volume after vol- 
 2 
 
26 INTEODUCTIOl^. 
 
 lime have appeared, witli no result except 
 to make the discussion wider and more ani- 
 mated. Nor will any effort in this direc- 
 tion ever be successful, that is not carried 
 on purely on facts within the Bible itself. 
 
 Here, then, must the whole subject rest 
 for solution, as it is quite useless and a loss 
 of time and intellect to undertake to move 
 belief by any other arguments or proofs. 
 Nor would this work ever have appeared, 
 if the Hebrew Genesis did not within it- 
 self contain a clear solution of this long- 
 contested and vexed problem. There is a 
 current mode of reading Scripture, and 
 teaching it by individual opinions, not 
 found in the book itself, or even supported 
 by anything that can be found in it. The 
 moment a teacher branches off from that 
 word, and evolves his individual opinions 
 which he cannot support by Scripture, he 
 is making an oration to men, and not 
 teaching the word. 
 
INTRODUCTIOIS'. 27 
 
 This remark is not made to criticise any 
 one, but to prepare the mind of the reader 
 to reject all in this work which may par- 
 take of individual opinion, not supported 
 by the Hebrew Genesis, and be prepared 
 to accept what he will find there, no mat- 
 ter what open declarations may be used by 
 others a^ expressions of individual opinion. 
 All should remember, that if the Bible has 
 been given to man for his instruction, it is 
 his duty to read it for instruction and 
 study, and comprehend its meaning. Every 
 intelligent mind is responsible to his God 
 to do this so far as he can understand it, 
 asking instruction on such portions as are 
 incomprehensible to him. 
 
 Then, what must be regarded as the 
 position which the author takes in this dis- 
 cussion ? Not as a teacher, for he does not 
 pretend to teach. Not as a declaimer of 
 individual opinions, for he knows how 
 valueless they are upon this subject. Not 
 
28 INTRODUCTIOlf. 
 
 an antagonist to tlie word of God, for that 
 is liis present effort to point out and sup- 
 port. Not to advance new and startling 
 theories for fame and renown, for the sub- 
 stance of this work is as old as the world 
 itself. Not to complain of any one for his 
 belief, or of any teacher for his teachings, 
 for the author has been with theni, and of 
 them. But having discovered in the word 
 what he thinks will go far to end the con- 
 troversy of the unity of the race, he now 
 proposes to show what has been left be- 
 hind in the passage of the Genesis from the 
 Hebrew to the English language. 
 
 This brings the author in controversy with 
 men about the accuracy of their acts, and 
 not in controversy with God and His acts, 
 or the record of them. It is a controversy 
 about the mechanical accuracy with which 
 men entrusted with transposing the acts of 
 God from the Hebrew language into the 
 English language, have acccomplished their 
 
criEOBu.CTioN. 29 
 
 mission. If tliey have not transposed 
 accurately, tliey have not injured tlie word 
 of God, but have simjDly failed to get the 
 word in the new language. Though they 
 may through error have done what has 
 produced immense controversy, not one jot 
 or tittle of God's word has been lost to the 
 world, though it may have been suspended 
 for a time. 
 
 The questions to be decided in this work 
 are simple questions of fact : whether the 
 King James translation is so faithfully 
 done as to give the reader the same ideas as 
 are contained in the Hebrew Genesis on the 
 subject of the introduction of mankind in 
 the creation, and the relative position of the 
 man and woman placed in the Garden of 
 Eden to that creation. There is no Chris- 
 tian Avho should not be deeply interested in 
 these facts, whatever may be his particular 
 creed, or however limited may be his knowl- 
 
80 INTEODUCTION". 
 
 edge of the record in the one or in tlie 
 other language. 
 
 A fact worthy of note in this place may 
 be stated as a proof that the author has 
 good reasons for believing, besides his own 
 knowledge, that the positions that will be 
 taken in this work as to these incorrect 
 transpositions are true and cannot be con- 
 troverted, is that sixteen years ago he put 
 forth his Cosmogony, and although this sub- 
 ject was not made a principal one, it was 
 referred to, and the mistranslations were 
 pointed out. The subject being compara- 
 tively new to him at that time, he was not 
 over-confident, and he sent the work broad- 
 cast, giving it to Divines, Jew Rabbis, 
 Hebrew scholars, and learned men, with the 
 urgent request to early inform him of any 
 error the book contained in this resjDect. 
 Many took it with the ]3romise that they 
 would do so. No man has ever answered 
 to tills day^ pointing out an error. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 1 
 
 The following propositions, it is believed, 
 will be shown conclusively * 
 
 First That the Hebrew name AoA^ii in 
 Genesis i. 26, was a name given by God 
 Himself to a class, and should have been 
 retained in its place in the translation. 
 Instead of which the term man is used, 
 which has many and various meanings. 
 
 Second. That the Hebrew term Ha-Ada:m 
 or The Adam, in Genesis i. 27, denoted and 
 stood for the individual placed in the 
 Garden of Eden, and instead of retaining 
 his name in that important place, it has 
 been changed by the translators to man. 
 
 Third. That the Hebrew term Ha- Ad am 
 or The Adam being a proper name for an 
 individual, and sometimes called Adam 
 without the article, is variously translated 
 or transformed to the man^ man., and men., 
 in succeeding chapters of the Genesis. 
 
 Fourth. That the act of making Ada>[ 
 the class in the Genesis i. 26, was an inde- 
 
32 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 pendent act of God in the creation, and' 
 has no necessary connection with the suc- 
 ceeding act of creating recorded in Genesis 
 i. 27. 
 
 Fifth. That the translators have dropped 
 the very important word And altogether 
 which stands at the beginning of the 
 Hebrew Genesis i. 27, and substituted the 
 word So in its stead, thereby changing the 
 relation between the 26th and 27th verses 
 of Genesis. 
 
 Sixth, That by dropping the word And, 
 and substituting the word So in its stead, 
 the principal act of God in the creation, 
 recorded in the Genesis i. 26, is eliminated 
 and set aside, making this act in this verse 
 a declaration or a peroration of what was 
 to be done in the 27th verse. 
 
 Seventh. That by these transformations, 
 eliminations, and substitutions the whole 
 sense of the Genesis, on the subject of the 
 introduction of mankind in the creation. 
 
UTTEODUCTION. 33 
 
 has been cliano:ed and mutilated almost 
 beyond recognition. 
 
 Eujlitlh. That the Law of keproductiox 
 which reo;ulates and verifies the Hebrew 
 Genesis on this subject, being among the 
 first and most important emanating from 
 God, has, as far as the knowledge of the 
 author extends, been entirely ignored, or 
 at least has remained unnoticed. 
 
 Eeo:ardino^ the time at which the Kino; 
 James translation was made, and the set- 
 tled views as to the origin of mankind then- 
 prevalent, it is not surprising that the trans- 
 lators allowed change of words and interpo- 
 lation of others to make it conform to what 
 they conceived it should be. The subject 
 in the Hebrew partakes very much of the 
 character of a mathematical problem, 
 where terms are used the definitions for 
 which are found remote from where they 
 are used. Substitutions of these meanings 
 
 solve the equations, whereas, if these are 
 2* 
 
34 INTKODUCTIO]Sr. 
 
 not observed and not made, tlie problem 
 remains unsolved. 
 
 The subject at best is a perplexing one, 
 without a key ; with that, all is plain. No 
 one will attribute to the translators any 
 other motive than to harmonize the Bible 
 as a whole from their stand-point of 
 knowleds-e and construction. The con- 
 struction of the unity of the race conse- 
 quent upon this translation is a great 
 drawback, and to many a bar to belief, in 
 the Bible, they being ignorant of any 
 change from the original word, so decided 
 as to alter the whole meaning on this sub- 
 ject. 
 
 It may be asked, and very properly, 
 what effect will all this have upon the 
 Bible and Christianity? The effect upon 
 the Bible would be to make it agree with 
 the acts of God in the reproduction of 
 mankind as far as history records, and 
 relieve it from apparent antagonism to 
 
INTRODUCTIOISr. 35 
 
 these acts wliere no proof exists. Errors 
 of construction or of teaching are mere 
 frictions upon the great balance-wlieel of 
 Christianity, and the sooner corrected the 
 more accelerated will be its motion and the 
 more j^owerful will be its action. But 
 there is still a more important question to 
 be asked, and that is, Is this the word of 
 God? 
 
POSTULATES TO BE.PROYEN. 
 
 FIEST POSTULATE. 
 
 That the Hebrew Genesis, as well as our pres- 
 ent English- Bible, records a Divine Law of re- 
 production for the vegetable and animal king- 
 doms, and for mankind, by which law, and in 
 accordance with it, each separate kind of men 
 and women now persistently reproduced, have 
 been so reproduced after his hind since the day 
 of creation. 
 
 seco:n'd postulate. 
 
 That the Hebrew Genesis records the making 
 or creating of two Adams. The one named by 
 God Himself, and that name explained by Moses 
 as standing for a class m.ale and female man in 
 the day of creation. The other, the name of 
 
POSTULATES TO BE PKOVEN. 37 
 
 the individual man placed in the Garden of 
 Eden, and in the Hebrew Genesis most generally 
 called IIa-Ada^i, or TnE Adam, and sometimes 
 called Adam ^Yitll0^t the article prefixed. 
 
 TniED POSTULATE. 
 
 Tliat Adam, named by God and standing in the 
 Hebrew Genesis i. 26 for a class male and fe- 
 male man, was the embodiment of the males and 
 females who were tlie heads of reproduction of 
 the various kinds of men and women now found 
 on the earth, except the Hebrews, and reproduced 
 ever since in accordance with and carrying for- 
 ward God's woi'd, command, and law of repro- 
 duction after his kind. 
 
 rOUETH POSTULATE. 
 
 That the Genesis i. 27 is devoted exclusively 
 to the account of the creation of the lieads of the 
 Hebrew kind. That Ha-Adam, or The Ada^i, 
 was a male, created and placed in the Garden of 
 Eden with Eve, his wife. That there were other 
 male and female Hebrews created as recorded in 
 
38 POSTULATES TO BE PEOVEN. 
 
 the same, verse. That Noah and his family be- 
 came the second heads of the Adam and Eve 
 line of reproduction after the flood. 
 
 FIFTH POSTULATE. 
 
 That the Hebrew Genesis records the destruc- 
 tion by flood of the generations of Adam and 
 Eve, except Noah and his family, but nothing 
 more of the human creation. 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGED POSTULATE. 
 
 That there is not one word in the Bible that 
 declares in terms that all men and women have 
 descended from one man^ or one jpair^ or are of 
 common parentage. 
 
FIRST POSTULATE. 
 
 That tlie Hebrew Genesis, as wefl as our present English 
 Bible, records a Divine law of reproduction for 
 .the vegetable and animal kingdoms, and for man- 
 kind, by which law, and in accordance with it, each 
 separate kind of men and women now persistently 
 reproduced have been so reproduced after his Tcind 
 since the day of Creation. 
 
 We have read tlie Genesis for nearly 
 fifty" years as was supposed understand- 
 iugly, and for over tliirty years critically 
 investigating every word and every sen- 
 tence. It is safe to say that this reading 
 and hearing read of this chapter has ex- 
 tended to hundreds of times, if not to a 
 thousand times. Still, this great and im- 
 portant law of reproduction repeated 
 three times in that cha]3ter escaped our 
 notice, and probably never would have 
 been observed but for the followino^ cir- 
 
40 FIRST POSTULATE. 
 
 cumstance: This last spring, 1873, while 
 listening to the reading of that chapter by 
 the Rev. Dr. Cooke, in St. Bartholomew's 
 Church, we followed him closely as he read 
 along, every word and idea being familiar. . 
 He passed over the law of reproduction 
 for the vegetable kingdom, and over the 
 same for the creations of tlie fifth day. Bat 
 when he opened on the 24th verse, which 
 reads : " And God said. Let the earth bring 
 forth the living creature after his MndJ"^ 
 etc., a flood of light burst upon our mind, 
 and, absorbed in reflection, we lost the 
 reading of the balance of the chapter. 
 
 After services, we returned home, took 
 up the Bible, read the chapter over, and .to 
 our amazement found this law of repro- 
 duction, three times 'repeated. The first 
 expression was, "Do I know anything 
 about* the Genesis after all ? " By. subse- 
 quent reflection we found that this was not 
 the discovery of an error but the discovery 
 
riEST POSTULATE. ' 41 
 
 of a new fact, and we at once determined 
 to aofain renew and continue our inves- 
 tigation witli redoubled energy. AVliether 
 tMs law is new or not to others we have 
 no means of determining, but we have 
 never seen it referred to in any work, or 
 spoken of from the puljDit in the light we 
 read it now. 
 
 There is, however, no one principle more 
 familiar to the .observation of men than the 
 operation of this law ; no one principle upon 
 which we all so much depend. It is the 
 beginning and the ending of all our calcu- 
 lations based in the operations of Nature. 
 It is the Alpha and Omega of all certainty. 
 Do we sow the seed, not knowing what 
 hind shall be produced ? Do we breed the 
 animal, not kno^ving what hind will be 
 the result? Does' the Caucasian propagate 
 and not know what hind of a child wdll be 
 born to him ? 
 
 As examjDles: Do we sow the grass 
 
42 • FIRST POSTULATE. 
 
 seed, and expect thistles to spring from the 
 germs ? Do we plant corn, and expect to 
 find wheat in the ears ? Do we plant the 
 apple seed, and expect the sturdy oak as 
 the tree ? Do we breed from the cow, and 
 expect the ass? Do we breed from the 
 sheep, and expect the goat ? Do we breed 
 from the hen, and expect the horse ? Does 
 the fair-skinned Caucasian marry the fair- 
 skinned Caucasian, and expect the J^egro for 
 a progeny? Does the Mongol marry the 
 Mongol, and expect the Caucasian for his 
 progeny ? 
 
 Or these examples : Do we plant corn, 
 and expect the alligator ? Do we plant the 
 apple seed, and expect an ox? Do we sow 
 the grass seed, and expect a human being ? 
 Do we breed from the cow, and expect a 
 peach tree ? Do we breed from the sheep, 
 and expect the moccasin snake ? Do 
 we breed from the hen, and ex]3ect the 
 Indian? Does any human being marry 
 
FIRST POSTULATE. 43 
 
 his fair bride, and expect as liis progeny 
 any one of tliese things ? 
 
 No. We sow the grass seed, and exi)QGt 
 and get the grass of the kind we so^v. 
 We jDlant the corn, and expect and get the 
 kind we plant. We plant the apple seed, 
 and we expect and get the hind of apple 
 we plant. We breed from the sheep, and 
 we get the M?id we breed from. We breed 
 from the hen, and we get the hind we 
 breed from. The fair-skinned Caucasian 
 marries the fair-skinned Caucasian, and 
 the same kind is the progeny — a fair- 
 skinned Caucasian. The Negro marries 
 the Negro, and the same 7ci7id is the 
 progeny — a Negro. The Mongol marries 
 the Mongol : the same hind is the progeny 
 — a Mongol. 
 
 If kinds are mixed in production, the 
 result will be mixed. If one kind pre- 
 dominates over another in reproduction, 
 the result will tend to that kind, and if 
 
4:4c FIRST POSTULATE. 
 
 continued the weaker kind will run out 
 and disappear. 
 
 This law of reproduction, upon whicli 
 we all so firmly depend, is not a law of 
 cliance, nor tlie result of trials by the 
 Creator to establish and make it effective. 
 It was proclaimed on the threshold of 
 creation, and on the day of the making or 
 creating of each hind to which the law 
 applies. It was in full force on that day, 
 and, as one of the unchangeable laws 
 emanating from this high Source, has con- 
 tinued unchanged and un variable to the 
 present moment, and will continue during 
 all existences which are reproduced. As 
 we see its operation, so has every human 
 being seen its operation. ■ Ages past have 
 witnessed it. and depended upon it, nor has 
 that dependence ever been disappointed in 
 the violation of the law. Our-'experience, 
 and the want of evidence to the contrary, 
 confirm the fact that this law applies to 
 
FIRST POSTULATE. 45 
 
 all reproductions. We quote the passages 
 of Scripture wliicli contain tliis law, both 
 for the vegetable and animal kingdoms, as 
 well as for mankind : 
 
 Gen. i. 11. And God said. Let the earth bring forth 
 grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree 
 yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, 
 upon the earth : and it was so. ■ 
 
 Gen. i. 21. And God created great whales, and every 
 living creature that moveth, which the waters 
 brought forth abundantly after, their lind, and 
 every winged fowl after his Mnd : and God saw 
 that it was good. 
 
 Gen. i. 24. And God said. Let the. eabth bring 
 
 FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE AFTER HIS KIND, 
 
 cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth 
 after his hind : and it was so. «■ 
 
 This is the King James translation, and 
 seems plain, but the Hebrew is still plainer 
 in the last verse, which applies to the 
 human race. We give them literally : 
 
 Gen. i. 11. And said God, Let sprout forth the earth 
 - grass of green herbage, seeding seed tree of fruit 
 
 making fruit to Us lind, which its seed in it upon the 
 
 earth : and it was so. 
 Gen. i. 21. And created God the sea monsters, the 
 
 great, and every soul of the life which creeping, 
 
46 FIKST POSTULATE. 
 
 which brought forth abundantly, the waters to 
 their Mild, and every fowl of wing to its hind: and 
 saw God that good. 
 Gen. i. 24. And said God, Let brixg forth tele 
 EAUTH SOUL OP LIFE TO ITS KES'D. Cattle, and 
 creeping thing, and beast of the earth to its Tcind : 
 and it was so. 
 
 It will be observed tliat the expression 
 soul of THE life^ is used for the creations of 
 the fifth day, while in those of the sixth 
 day, when mankind were made and 
 created, it is soul of life. What the dif- 
 ference is, if there be any, we are unable 
 to find out from the inspired word itself. 
 We therefore do not pretend to make an 
 explanation, but pass on with the remark 
 that words are not eno^raved in that record 
 without they have a meaning, though we 
 may not readily see it. 
 
 The last law stands at the head of the 
 creations of the sixth day. But this is 
 not all. God not only gave mankind a 
 law by which their reproduction should be 
 
FIRST POSTULATE. 47 
 
 governed, but gave them a command to 
 increase J and multijyly^ and replenish the 
 earth. What condition would 2:)oor hu- 
 manity have been in, to follow this com- 
 mand, if no law had been devised and 
 established by which it could be carried 
 out ? The law would seem a necessity 
 following the command. 
 
 If there 'had been no record of the la^v 
 as there is none of gravitation, we would 
 conclude that there must have been such 
 a law established in the day of creation, 
 because of its operation or result. 
 
 Can a child be born without a law of 
 God to regulate its gro^vth and birth? 
 We all know that reproduction is now- car- 
 ried on in the human family, and has been 
 through the range of all history, in exact 
 accordance with some law of God upon 
 the subject. Is this, then, the law of re- 
 production required by mankind to increase 
 and multiply and replenish the earth? 
 
48 first postulate. 
 
 Let the eaeth bring forth the living 
 CREAi^URE AFTER HIS KIND, or as the He- 
 brew states it, Let bring forth the earth 
 
 SOUL OF LIFE TO ITS KIND. 
 
 What meaning can be attached to this 
 portion of God's word, if it does not stand 
 for reproduction in the haman family, when 
 man is a living creature of God, and man 
 is a soul of life. Although this law is a 
 prominent law plainly laid down in Script- 
 ure, as far as our knowledge extends it 
 has received no notice, and has been a dead 
 letter upon the record. Further than this, 
 the construction of the unity of the race, 
 or that the various kinds of men have all 
 descended from Adam and Eve, is in dead- 
 lock with the law. . Is this deadlock in the 
 word itself, or is it in a manism imposed in 
 error upon our King James translation? 
 Is it a deadlock in the inspired Hebrew, 
 or is it a deadlock in the translation ? The 
 word of God never stultifies itself, and 
 
FIRST POSTULATE. 49 
 
 whatever mutilations it may undergo in 
 its transmission into another langauge, the 
 original word stands. Nor can any such 
 changes, or constructions based upon them, 
 change either the Divine law or its opera- 
 tion. 
 
 If this be so — and we cannot see ho\v it 
 can be otherwise — how has this thing hap- 
 pened ? We think we can give a satisfac- 
 tory answer to the question. In the first 
 place (and where it commenced we cannot 
 tell), the world has been educated to the 
 idea that we have all descended from 
 Adam and Eve. Some have controverted 
 the idea upon various hypotheses based 
 upon arguments outside the Bible. They 
 have all been unsuccessful, because the as- 
 sertion could hot be disproved, and the King- 
 James translation aided the construction ; 
 and the world has gone forward under this 
 teaching, till the idea has become stereo- 
 typed upon the minds of almost all believ- 
 
 J 
 
50 FIRST POSTULATE. 
 
 incj: Christians. All have read the Bible 
 with the 26th and 27th verses of Genesis, 
 which relates to the creation of man, as one 
 verse in substance, made so by the transla- 
 tors eliminating the word And, and the 
 placing of the word So in its stead, at the 
 beginning of Gen. i. 27, as will be seen 
 hereafter. 
 
 No questions have been asked, and no 
 remonstrance made, so far as we know. 
 The people have been educated on one act 
 of God, in the creation of mankind, instead 
 of two acts, and of course the theology of 
 the unity of the race has been maintained. 
 There is not, in all probability, one reader 
 in a million, except he be a teacher, 
 who has ever compared the Hebrew text 
 of the Genesis with the King James 
 translation; and if he had, might not 
 have seen the discrepancy. Under the 
 construction of the unity, the Genesis i. 24, 
 which contains the law of reproduction 
 
FIEST POSTULATE. 51 
 
 of tlie liiiman race, Las been construed, 
 l^robably — if it lias liad any construc- 
 tion — to relate to the brute creation 
 instead of to mankind, overlooking: the 
 fact that there must be a law of this 
 kind somewhere, to give vitality to God's 
 word, and that man is a living creature of 
 God, and man is a soul of life. 
 
 We can readily see how these errors 
 have been maintained by reference to our 
 individual case. It was nearly thirty years 
 of comparison of the Hebrew text with 
 the literal translation, referring to them 
 both in all our investigations, before we 
 discovered the substitution of So for Axd 
 at the beginning of Genesis i. 27 ; and over 
 thirty years till we discovered the law of 
 i-eproduction of the human family. Others 
 probably would have accomplished it 
 quicker or not at all, but this is the fact. 
 
 There is not a single married man, whether 
 he be a teacher of the construction of the 
 
52 FIRST POSTULATE. 
 
 unity, or a believer in it, wlio does not prac- 
 tically use this law of reproduction in liis 
 own mind, and depend upon it as much as 
 he does upon the rising and setting of the 
 sun. He expects his progeny to be after 
 Ms hindj and he is never disappointed. 
 But practically he applies the teachings 
 and belief to others he knows not of, that 
 their progeny was at some time in violation 
 of the law, while he feels secure in its effi- 
 ciency towards himself. 
 
 Before we shall have done with this 
 subject. We hope to be able to show that 
 this construction of the unity of the race is 
 an error, and is not due to the Bible, even 
 independent of the law of reproduction; 
 with that law recognized, it is a still 
 graver error. It has not been our purpose 
 to single out this particular construction, 
 or attack it. It is one of the incidental 
 points in the discussion that will correct 
 itself when our King James Bible is cor- 
 
FIKST POSTULATE. 53 
 
 rected of its errors of translation from tlie 
 Hebrew text. 
 
 What is a Jcind^ as spoken of in the law 
 of reproduction of the vegetable and ani- 
 mal kingdoms, and of mankind or the liv- 
 ing creature or soul of life ? Is man a 
 living creature of God? Webster defines 
 creature to mean, " That which is created ; 
 every being beside - the Creator, or every- 
 thing not self -existent. The sun, moon, and 
 stars, the earth, animals, j^lants, light, dark- 
 ness, water, etc., are the creatm^es of God." 
 If these be tlie creatures of God, what is a 
 living creature ? The answer is an axiom : 
 anything made or sustained by God that 
 has life. 
 
 Let those, then, who are willing to deny 
 that the living creature spoken of in Genesis 
 i. 24 does not apply to mankind, deny it ; 
 we are not responsible for such denial ; we 
 stand by'the word as it is, and believe, ^vhere 
 inspiration says. Let the earth bring forth 
 
54 FIEST POSTULATE. 
 
 tlie living creature or soul of life after his 
 kind, that it means what it says, and that 
 the living creature or soul of life should be 
 brought forth after his Icind^ and that man, 
 being a living creature of God, should be 
 bound in being brought forth by this com- 
 mand, and in obedience to this law. 
 
 This law, being established on the day of 
 creation, applied to the normal condition 
 of mankind on that day ; and no doubt the 
 law would have been carried out in strict 
 obedience, and only the various kinds of 
 men then made would have been repro- 
 duced after Ms hind^ but for the fall of 
 Adah and Eve, when hybridity between 
 Mnds commenced and has continued ever 
 since. The first example is recorded in the 
 marriage of the sons of God to the daugh- 
 ters or descendants of Adam and Eve, as 
 will be seen hereafter. 
 
 The question may be mooted, that hind^ 
 as used, means that trees should reproduce 
 
FIEST POSTULATE. 55 
 
 trees, that animals should rej)roduce ani- 
 mals, and that man should reproduce man. 
 If this was the class of ideas intended to he 
 conveyed, why was it not so expressed ? 
 Why was not this form and shape given to 
 the law ? If we admit that whatever is re- 
 produced in the vegetable and animal king- 
 doms, or of mankind, is by the law, or is 
 the work of God, our observation must be 
 our guide to determine what the law works 
 upon. We see the work going on before 
 our eyes, and we depend upon results by 
 what has been, will be ; and hence we must 
 admit the constant recurrence of results as 
 of and governed by a law, or deny the ex- 
 istence of a supreme and sustaining Being. 
 Now, what do we find in the operations 
 of IN^ature ? We find that trees reproduce 
 trees, that vegetables reproduce vegetables, 
 that animals reproduce animals, and that 
 man reproduces man. But do we find 
 nothing further? Yes, we find a lower 
 
56 EIEST POSTULATE. 
 
 subdivision of reproductions than such a 
 law or classification makes: we find not 
 only that trees reproduce trees, but they 
 are reproduced after Ms hind ivJiose seed is 
 in itself ; we find not only that animals 
 reproduce animals, but that each hind of 
 animal reproduces itself. We find, too, that 
 not only man reproduces man, but we find 
 that various hinds of men reproduce them- 
 selves persistently, and have done so during 
 the range of all history. 
 
 We take the word as corresponding with 
 the acts of God as we see them developed, 
 and accept without cavil that these acts 
 are in accordance with and flow from the 
 law of reproduction, after Ms hind. That 
 hind means any separate and distinct line 
 of existence that continues to he reproduced 
 and has heen so reproduced during all his- 
 tory. We find no difiiculty in giving force, 
 vitality, and meaning to the term when we 
 apply it to the ordinary transactions of life. 
 
riEST POSTULATE. 57 
 
 We say kinds of apples, kinds of peaches, 
 kinds of pears, kinds of grass, kinds of ani- 
 mals, kinds of slieep, kinds of any and every 
 thing ; and finally, kinds of men and women. 
 Why, then, can we not give it force, vital- 
 ity, and meaning when we find it in the 
 word of God ? 
 
 When, then, we find the law so plainly 
 laid down. Let the earth bring forth the 
 living creature^ or soul of life^ after his 
 Mnd^ shall we hesitate to acknowledge the 
 law, acknowledo-e that man is a livino^ 
 creature of God, or soul of life of God ; 
 acknowledge that Mud is a subdivision of 
 mankind as we see them reproduced after 
 his hind at this time throughout the earth ? 
 Had we not rather examine the subject and 
 ourselves to see if there has not been an 
 error in our reading, an error in oui' con- 
 struction, or an error in our comprehension, 
 of this important command and law. 
 Whether we have so carefully scrutinized 
 
58 riEST POSTULATE. 
 
 the Hebrew inspiration tliat we can set 
 aside and ignore tMs portion of God's word, 
 and satisfy ourselves by saying that our 
 construction and our translation of the 
 Hebrew is right, although in deadlock with 
 the law, and of its operation before our eyes. 
 We must then conclude that there were 
 kinds of people made in the day of creation 
 as well as kinds in the vegetable and kinds 
 in the animal kingdom, as it is not suppos- 
 able that a law would be framed by an 
 All-wise Being to operate upon that which 
 did not exist. As the laws of God are 
 continuous and unchanging, we also con- 
 clude that hinds of men have always 
 existed as we know they now exist, and 
 that the law of reproduction, after his 
 hind, has been in constant force and opera- 
 tion * since the day of its establishment. 
 This is the reasoning upon the subject ; the 
 facts we will show hereafter from the 
 record itself. 
 
SECOND POSTULATE. 
 
 That the Hebrew Genesis records the making or creating 
 of Two Adams — the one named by God Himself, and 
 that name explained by Moses as standing for a class 
 male and female man in the day of Creation. The 
 other, the name of the individual man placed in tlie 
 Garden of Eden, and in the Hebrew Genesis most 
 generally called Ha-Ada.m or The Adam, and some- 
 times called Adam without the article prefixed. 
 
 The announcement of the fact that there 
 are two Adams named in the Hebrew, will 
 astonish many; but the astonishment will 
 be still greater when they are informed 
 that the Kins: James translation calls also 
 for the same number. We have searched 
 carefully to ascertain if Adam the class 
 was used in any other portions of the Bible 
 except in the two places where it occurs 
 in the Genesis, but without success. These 
 two places are, the first in Genesis i. 
 
60 SECOND POSTULATE. 
 
 26, and the second where the name is 
 defined in Genesis v. 2. There are other 
 places where the term is used where the 
 individual's name Adam would seem to be 
 inapplicable; but we would not take the 
 responsibility of saying that the meaning 
 in those places should be Adam male and 
 female man. It is a singular fact, too, that 
 God Himself gave that name to this class 
 male and female. There is in contrast with 
 this, that it is not stated in the record who 
 named Ha- Adam or The Adam of the Gar- 
 den of Eden. 
 
 The only safe rule to be adopted in read- 
 ing an inspired record, where we may or 
 may not get at the exact meaning, is to 
 give full force to every term and expression 
 — not to eliminate a term because we do 
 not understand it. On this principle can 
 any one explain why this name Adam oc- 
 curring in the Genesis i. 26 was eliminated 
 from its place there, and why it was re- 
 
SECOND POSTULATE. 61 
 
 tainecl in Genesis v. 2, where tlie name is 
 defined ? 
 
 We will, however, examine the two prin- 
 cipal acts of creation recorded in Genesis 
 i. 26 and in Genesis i. 27. We say they 
 are different and principal acts, beca.use 
 the acts of creating and making are differ- 
 ent, and the subjects were different. For 
 the class Adam in Genesis i. 26 was made 
 in that verse, and created in Genesis v. 2, 
 where the term is defined; while PIa- 
 Adam, or The Adam, and male and female, 
 were created in Gen. i. 27, and w^ade in the 
 Genesis ii. 7, 22, of the dust of the ground, 
 and Eve from the rib of The AdzVM. So 
 that both acts in the two verses were 
 making and creating, whatever was made 
 or created in each. 
 
 What the difference of creating and 
 making consisted in, or whether there was 
 any difference, we cannot say ; but such is 
 the record, and so we read it. We con- 
 
62 SECOND POSTULATE. 
 
 elude there was a difference from this quo- 
 tation : 
 
 Gen. ii. 3. And God blessed the seventh day, and 
 sanctified it : because that in it He had rested from 
 all His work which God created and made. 
 
 The following are the only two verses of 
 Genesis i. which record the making or 
 creating of mankind : 
 
 Gen. i. 26. And God said, Let us make Adam in our 
 image, after our likeness: and let them have 
 dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the 
 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all 
 the earth, and over every creeping thing that 
 creepeth upon the earth. 
 
 Gen. i. 27. And God created Ha-Adam in His own 
 image, in the image of God created He him : male 
 and female created He them. 
 
 This is the inspired record, and these are 
 the names used in the Hebrew. God has 
 placed them there, and man has obliterated 
 them and expunged them from His holy 
 record in the King James translation. 
 The name of the class Adam, occurring but 
 once in this account, can be clearly identi- 
 fied both in its position and in its meaning. 
 
SECOND POSTULATE. 63 
 
 Are Christians entitled to the word of 
 God as written by inspiration, or are they 
 to accept the garbled manisms of fore- 
 stalled construction? We claim the God 
 name Adam anywhere and everywhere, into 
 whatever language the word of God may 
 be translated, as a name not to be altered, 
 changed, or fixed up in some other shape, 
 to prove a construction not • warranted, if 
 these names are retained in the places 
 where God has put them. The clear, dis- 
 tinct, and unmistakable definition of this 
 name given by God Himself is exj)lained by 
 His inspired writer, Moses, as follows : 
 
 Gen. V. 2. Male and female created He them ; and blessed 
 them, and called their name Adam, in the day when 
 they were created. 
 
 What genuine truth can there be in any 
 transcrij)tion of Gen. i. 26, that does not 
 contain either the name Adam or the defi- 
 nition given of it here? Can there be 
 urged any objection to a name given by 
 
64 SECOl^D POSTULATE. 
 
 God Himself, tliat it should not appear in 
 what purports to be His revelation ? If 
 this name had been retained, then the 
 verse would read in this respect : 
 
 Gen. i. 26. And God said, Let us make Adam, etc. 
 
 And if the meaning or definition of the 
 name given by Moses had been used in- 
 stead, then it would read ; 
 
 Gen. i. 26. And God said, Let us make male and female 
 man, etc. 
 
 But, says the constructionist, male and 
 female man are created in the next verse, 
 and how can that be? never remember- 
 ing that by this inquiry he assumes to 
 direct God in His creation, and calls Moses 
 to account for his accuracy. Those who 
 cannot gain a consistent idea from the 
 record as it stands in the Hebrew, would 
 do well to consider whether that be due 
 to a want of research in themselves, or 
 whether it should be charged as a defect 
 
SECOXD POSTULATE. 65 
 
 upon the Creator and His inspired re- 
 corder. In other words, whether the 
 Hebrew record is to be changed at will to 
 brinoj it into coincidence with our own 
 views of what it should be, or stand as 
 God has given it to us through His in- 
 spired writers ? 
 
 What, then, have been the mutilations of 
 these two verses relating to the creation of 
 mankind ? We give them as they appear 
 in our English Bible : 
 
 Gen. i. 26. And -Ood said, Let us make mail in our 
 image, after our likeness : and let them have do- 
 minion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl 
 of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the 
 earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth 
 upon the earth. 
 
 Gen. i. 27. /So God created man in His own image, in 
 the image of God created He him ; male and female 
 created He them. 
 
 From this it will be seen that there are 
 tJiJ^ee very important eliminations in these 
 two verses, and still more important sub- 
 stitutions for original Hebrew names and 
 
(jQ SECOIS-D POSTULATE. 
 
 terms. The first is tlie striking out in 
 Gen. i. 26 of Adam (male and female 
 man, Gen. v. 2), and substituting man in 
 its stead. The second, the striking out the 
 Hebrew word Vay, meaning and, at the 
 beginning of Gen. i. 27, and the substitu- 
 tion of the English word So in its stead ; 
 and, third, the striking out of the Hebrew 
 name Ha- Adam, or The Adam, and the 
 substitution of the word man in its stead. ' 
 To any reader who never saw the He- 
 brew, man in the Genesis i. 26 would be 
 considered identical as a term, and as 
 identical in meaning with man in Gen. i. 
 27 ; and so it is in fact in the translation, 
 and we will soon give the reason. We 
 now ask the question vital to the subject : 
 Is Adam, defined as male and female man, 
 identical as a term and in meaning with 
 Ha- Adam, The Adam, or Adam the indi- 
 vidual man placed in the Garden of 
 Eden? We say decidedly, and most em- 
 
SECOJSTD POSTULATE. 67 
 
 phatically, No ! they are neither the same 
 term — the one being Adam, the other II a- 
 Adam, in the Hebrew; nor are they the 
 same in meaning — the one being the God 
 name of a class male and female, the other 
 being the name of a single male man. 
 
 Under the eliminations and substitutions 
 pointed out, our King James Bible is made 
 to declare that tliese two terms are identical 
 as terms, and as identical in meaning ; and 
 this was accomplished in a way not at all 
 creditable to the translators — whoever they 
 were, first or last — in our humble judg- 
 ment. This necessity called for a radical 
 change in the text. Instead, therefore, of 
 retaining the God word Ais^d at the begin- 
 ning of Gen. i. 27, they eliminated it, and 
 placed in its stead the manism So. Thus 
 mero;ino^ the Genesis i. 26 into the Genesis 
 i. 27, and making: but one act 'of creatine: 
 and making, instead of two; or in other 
 words, making the first a declaration of 
 
68 SECOKD POSTULATE. 
 
 intention to do wliat was done in tlie 
 second. 
 
 It will be seen that tlie word So could 
 not liave been used if tlie Hebrew names 
 x\dam and Ha- Ad am had not been stricken 
 out, and a common term substituted for 
 both ; and this accounts for the translators 
 not using these Hebrew names in the fore- 
 part of the Genesis. This word So is an 
 utter stranger to the word of God, and 
 well it should be, when it makes the sup- 
 posed inspired record declare that Adam, 
 male and female man, is identical mth 
 Ha-Adam, the individual. Even though 
 the terms and creative acts had been the 
 same, so far as man could judge, it would 
 be an unwarrantable transgression for any 
 one to eliminate the word Ai^d from the 
 record and substitute its diametrically 
 opposite in meaning, the word So, in its 
 stead. 
 
 To make this point more clear, suppose 
 
SECOND POSTULATE. 69 
 
 the translators had retained Adam in Gen. i. 
 26, and placed Ada3I as representing the 
 individual in Gen. i. 27, and then used the 
 word So at the beginning of the last-named 
 verse, without any further explanation of 
 the meaning of the two terms. Would 
 the reader conclude that Ada3I in the one 
 verse was identical with Adam in the 
 other ? Most certainly he would, and he 
 would be bound to do so. Then, when 
 man is substituted in each in the place of 
 Ada3I and Ha-Adam, can the ordinary 
 reader gain any other idea than that man 
 in each is identical in meaning ? 
 
 What, then, is the effect of these elimi- 
 nations and substitutions upon the record 
 of the creation of mankind as a whole? 
 They make good the construction generally 
 received by various religious sects and the 
 Christian world, that all mankind have 
 descended from Adam and Eve. If the 
 construction be as true as the premises 
 
'TO SECO^iTD POSTULATE. 
 
 from whicli it is drawn, and the Christian 
 world knew it, there would be nothing 
 more to write about on this subject. Such, 
 unfortunately, is not the case. All read- 
 ers of the English Bible suppose they 
 have been reading the unmutilated and 
 true word of God respecting the creation 
 of mankind, never for one moment suspect- 
 ing that they were reading what has no 
 place in the original inspired writings. 
 
 The positive effect of such eliminations 
 and substitutions has been the wiping out 
 of the record in the translation a principal 
 act of God in the creation of mankind con- 
 tained in the Hebrew. For whatever con- 
 struction men choose to place upon the 
 Genesis i. 26, there is one thing certain : 
 that it does record some act of God in this 
 direction. Those who will construe it as a 
 soliloquy, " Let us make Adam," etc., Avith- 
 out an act or intent of an accomplished act, 
 are at liberty to do so. But Moses gener- 
 
SECOin> POSTULATE. 71 
 
 ally wrote to record, and not to mystify. 
 Therefore, when he writes. And God said : 
 Let us make Ada^i (male and female 
 man) to have dominion, etc., we conclude 
 that this means something. We have, too, 
 the highest authority for our belief, and 
 that authority is no less than God Himself. 
 And God said^ Let us (the Godhead) 
 make something. What ? Answer : Ada:,i 
 (male and female man) to have dominion, 
 etc. Is this a deception, or a truth? Did 
 God do what He said He was going to do, 
 or did He not ? We bplieve He did do 
 just what He said He. was going to do, 
 namely, make Adam (male and female 
 man). 
 
 The Genesis i. 26 we regard as complete 
 in itself, expressing all that is necessary 
 for the bringing into existence the subject- 
 matter named. If no other verse was 
 ^vritten, giving further account of the cre- 
 ating or making of manldnd, no one would 
 
72 SECOND POSTULATE. 
 
 pretend that this was not enough to show 
 to man the time and position of the bring- 
 ing into existence this particular line of 
 created beings. By looking the whole ac- 
 count of the Genesis through, we find ex- 
 pressions preceding the act of making, such 
 as — 
 
 G-en. i. 6. And God said, Let there be a firmament, etc. 
 Gen. i. 11. And God said. Let the earth bring forth 
 
 grass, etc. 
 Gen. i. 14. And God said. Let there be lights in the 
 
 firmament, etc.- 
 Gen. i. 20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth 
 
 abundantly, etc. 
 Gen. i. 24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth 
 
 the living creature, etc. 
 
 In none of these is the word make or 
 made used; but made is used in most 
 afiirmative acts of making. As examples — 
 
 Gen. i. 7. And God made the firmament, etc. 
 Gen. i. 16. And God made two great lights, etc. 
 Gen. i. 25. And God made the beast of the earth, etc. 
 Gen. i. 26. And God said. Let us make Adam, etc. 
 
 Neither the word make nor made is any- 
 where used in the Genesis i., except to an 
 
SECOND POSTULATE. 73 
 
 affirmative act of makiiio;. The recorded 
 declaration of intention to make, by an all- 
 wise God, would seem to be not only useless, 
 but worse. Of course He liad tlie intention 
 to make ^diat He did make, and if every 
 creation or making was jDreceded in tlie 
 record by a declaration of this import, it 
 would be mainly taken up with verbiage 
 of tbis nature. It is neither the rule, nor 
 is there a single instance of it in the whole 
 of the first chapter of Genesis. AVhen 
 God said. Let us mcike Adam in our image, 
 after our likeness, etc., we take the decla- 
 ration as equivalent to the act. In other 
 words, if He said He would make Ada31, He 
 did mcike them; and if he created Ha- 
 Ada3i and male and female. He did create 
 them. 
 
 For ourselves, we will not dispute the 
 record, and we firmly hope that God will 
 hold us guiltless, if we nail our belief to 
 His sacred word, and read it just in accord- 
 
74 SECOND POSTULATE. 
 
 ance with the words laid down, even 
 though the whole world disj)iite it or gain- 
 say it. We then read the Genesis i. 26 
 and Genesis i. 27 separately and indepen- 
 dently as they stand, as there is nothing in 
 Scripture demanding that they should be 
 read otherwise. 
 
 This act- in Genesis i. 26 is, then, a prin- 
 cipal act of God in creation, and should 
 stand out in as bold relief as any other 
 principal act; it being separated from the 
 succeeding one in Genesis i. 27 by the 
 word And, which indicates, if permitted to 
 have its proper place in the record, an ad- 
 ditional act. But by using the word So 
 instead of And, and the word Man for 
 Adam (male and female) and for Ha- Ad am, 
 this principal act is eliminated from the 
 English record ; and those who have read 
 the King James translation have been en- 
 tirely in the dark as to this one act of God 
 in the ci*eation of mankind. 
 
SECOND POSTULATE. Y5 
 
 Having then, we tliink, shown clearly 
 that the Genesis i. 26 was not written for 
 nothing, and that it records one act of God 
 in the making of mankind, we pass from it 
 to the consideration of what act or acts are 
 recorded as having been done in Genesis i. 
 27. The act in Gen i. 26 was the making of 
 whatever was made, and the act or acts in 
 Genesis i. 27 was the creating of what- 
 ever was created. The difEerence we can- 
 not explain Scripturally, though we have 
 our individual opinion upon the subject. 
 We read Scripturally, as the record stands : 
 
 Gen. i. 27. And God created Ha- Adam in His own 
 image, in the image of God created He him. Male 
 and female created He them. 
 
 Ha-Adam, being the Hebrew name in 
 this verse, is readily recognized as the 
 individual man placed in the Garden of 
 Eden, and this name is uniformly used in 
 every place with two exceptions, where he 
 is referred to in Gen. ii. Ha being tlie in 
 
76 SECOND POSTULATE. 
 
 English, The Adam is the proper English 
 name, though he is also frequently called 
 Adam in the Hebrew. In every such case 
 known, it is plain to see that it is intended 
 for an individual, as for example : 
 
 Gen. iv. 1. And Adam knew his wife; and she con- 
 ceived and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man 
 from tlie Lord. 
 
 It would be somewhat ridiculous to use 
 the other Adam in this verse, or substitute 
 its meaning ; but in order to see how it 
 v/ould look on paper, we will do so. 
 
 Gen. iv. 1 . And male and female man knew his wife ; 
 and she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have 
 gotten a man from the Lord. 
 
 Ha- Adam, The Adam, or Adam, are all 
 correctly used to denote the man of the Gar- 
 den of Eden; while Adam (male and fe- 
 male), occurring in Gren. i. 26, and Gen. v. 2, 
 is a specific name given by God, and, as far 
 as we know, occurs nowhere else in the 
 Bible. The reason for its non-appearance 
 
SECOND POSTULATE. 77 
 
 may be found in the fact that Ada:m (male 
 and female man), as will be seen hereafter, 
 are the heads of lines of reproduction of all 
 other kinds of peoples not Hebrews, and 
 the Old Testament records the history of 
 the Hebrew kind. 
 
 The Grenesis i. 27 records three separate 
 acts of creation. 
 
 First. The creation of Ha- Ad am, or The 
 Adam. 
 
 Second. The creation of male. 
 
 Third. The creation of female. 
 
 There is no Scriptural connection be- 
 tween the male and female created here, 
 and the male and female made in Gen. i. 26. 
 From the reading it would be reasonable 
 to conclude that the male and female 
 was of the same kind as Ha-AdxSji ; that 
 the creating of Ha-Ada3I was complete with 
 the announcement, and that the male was 
 not a repetition of the creation of Ha- 
 Adam. From which we conclude that Ha- 
 
T8 . SECOND POSTULATE. 
 
 Adam was not created hoicej but that tlie 
 male or males referred to were distinct 
 creations also. This will be referred to 
 under the Fourth Postulate. 
 
 What we have undertaken under this 
 postulate is to show the making or creating 
 of two Adams. We have spoken of the 
 first in Gen. i. 26, and the second follows 
 almost as a matter of course. 
 
 The Ha-Adam of the Hebrew is The 
 Adam of the English, or simply Adam, as he 
 is known to the world, being the first man 
 created or made, and generally supposed to 
 be the father of all mankind. Although 
 he was ScrijDturally the fii'st man made 
 on the day of creation, he is not declared 
 anywhere to be the only man so made. 
 Whereas, v/e think the Scripture clearly 
 states, if we read the whole as contained in 
 the Hebrew, that there were more Hebrew 
 males made on the day of creation than 
 HaAdam or The Adam. The particle The 
 
SECOND POSTULATE. 79 
 
 before tlie name of Adam ^\'ould iudicate 
 particularization of tliis indiWdual as dis- 
 tino-uished from the other Adam male 
 and female. This, however, is incidental, 
 and is by no means controlling evidence on 
 this subject. 
 
 The great injustice done to Christianity by 
 these eliminations of terms and names, and 
 the substitutions whereby the sense is lost, 
 does not end with the two verses we have 
 considered. The name of The Adam, instead 
 of beino^ continued throusrh the account, is 
 variously rendered, the man, man, men, 
 men's or Adam, according to circumstances, 
 to make the record conform to the errors in 
 the Genesis i. 26, 27. A critical mind dis- 
 covering: this name in the Hebrew carried 
 forward in uniformity, except where it is 
 called Ada^i simply, would naturally ask 
 why were these various terms used to de- 
 note an individual ? In the first place, they 
 do not denote an individual, nor were tliey 
 
80 SECOND POSTULATE. 
 
 intended to denote an individual. They 
 are the offspring of the greater error. 
 
 The reader will see by turning over to 
 the chapter "Eliminations and Substitutions 
 in Genesis," how many transformations the 
 proper name The Adam has undergone in 
 the hands of the translators. He will 
 also see how beautifully clear and distinct 
 the account of the creation of mankind ap- 
 pears when the Hebrew names are retained 
 in their places, and the word So no longer 
 chains the two verses of Genesis i. 26, 27 
 together as a single act of God. This will 
 be seen in the first eleven chapters of Gene- 
 sis, corrected in these respects in the end of 
 this work. 
 
 We quote the definitions given by Web- 
 ster for the term man^ so profusely used by 
 the translators : 
 
 1. Mankind; the human race ; the whole 
 species of human beings ; beings distin- 
 guished from all other animals by the 
 
SECOND POSTULATE. 81 
 
 powers of reason and speech, as well as by 
 their shape and dignified aspect. When 
 opposed to ivomcm^ man sometimes denotes 
 the male sex in general. 
 
 2. A male individual of the human race, 
 of adult growth or years. 
 
 3. A male of the human race. Used 
 often in compound words or in the nature 
 of an adjective, as a man-child ; men-cooks ; 
 men-servants. 
 
 4. A servant or attendant of the male sex. 
 
 5. A word of familiar address. 
 
 6. It sometimes bears the sense of a male 
 adult of some uncommon qualifications, 
 particularly the sense of strength, vigor, 
 bravery, virile jDOwers, or magnanimity, as 
 distinguished from weakness, timidity, or 
 impotence of a boy, or from the narrow- 
 mindedness of low-bred men. 
 
 7. An individual of the human species. 
 
 8. Man is sometimes opposed to boy or 
 child, and sometimes to beast. 
 
82 SECOND POSTULATE. 
 
 9. One who is master of his mental 
 powers, or who conducts himself wdth his 
 usual judgment. When a person has lost 
 his senses, or acts without his usual judg- 
 ment, we say he is not his own man. 
 
 10. It is sometimes used indefinitely, 
 without reference to a particular individ- 
 ual ; any person, one. This is as much as 
 a man can desire. 
 
 11. In popular usage, a husband. 
 
 12. A movable piece at chess or 
 draughts. 
 
 18. In feudal law a vassal; a liege sub- 
 ject or tenant. 
 
 From these various definitions of man^ it 
 will be seen at once how many construc- 
 tions can be placed upon it. Instead of 
 using the specific God name Adam for the 
 class male and female, this diffused term 
 is substituted; and instead of using the 
 name of the individual man placed in the 
 Garden of Eden, the same term is used to 
 
SECOND POSTULATE. 83 
 
 denote him. Hence any of these definitions 
 can ^\ath rhetorical truth be substituted ; 
 and the question is, will these substitutions 
 be the truth ? Will they convey the idea 
 that is conveyed by the use of the names 
 found in the Hebrew ? We think not, and 
 therefore by the use of this word man for 
 these names, the translators have left behind 
 the pure word of God, and given to the 
 world for a Bible what is not the word of 
 God in these respects. 
 
 We then say that we have clearly proven, 
 both by the Hebrew text and by the trans- 
 lation, that there are in both, two Adams — 
 the one being male and female man^ the 
 other being the name of an individual male 
 man; that they have no Biblical connec- 
 tion with each other. As will be seen here- 
 after, they have been eliminated from their 
 proper places in the translation by which 
 the sense of the Genesis has been confused, 
 if not lost entirely from the Hebrew text. 
 
THIRD POSTULATE. 
 
 That Adam, named by God and standing in the Hebrew, 
 Gen. i. 26, for a class male and female man, was the 
 embodiment of the males and females who were the 
 heads of reproduction of the various kinds of men and 
 women now found on the earth, except the Hebrews, 
 reproduced ever since, in accordance with, and carry- 
 ing forward God's word, command, and law of repro- 
 duction after his hind. 
 
 The normal reading of tlie two verses 
 we have been considering, would lead to 
 the conclusion that there was more intended 
 to be conveyed by all these names and ex- 
 pressions than the bringing into existence 
 of one man and one woman. At best 
 there is no proof on the face of them 
 that this was all that was done by the two 
 acts there recorded ; on the contrary, it is 
 plain that this was not so. We believe 
 that there never would have arisen even a 
 
THIED POSTULATE. 85 
 
 question upon the subject of the origin of 
 mankind, if the Hebrew names and the 
 word And had been left in our Kino; James 
 translation where they occurred in the 
 Hebrew, and the law of reproduction had 
 been applied to the subject. The whole 
 question must, and should, be decided 
 purely upon Scripture, and on that, and on 
 that alone, we rely for oui^ proofs. 
 
 We think, then, it can be clearly shown 
 from the Scripture — 
 
 First. That Cain and Seth, sons of 
 Adam and Eve, did not marry their sisters, 
 but married Hebrews not descended from 
 them. 
 
 Second. That the sons of God mentioned 
 in the Genesis vi. 2, were neither Hebrews 
 nor descendants of Adam and Eve, but 
 were descendants of a different hind of 
 people, whose head in reproduction is to be 
 found in Adam, male and female^ on the 
 day of creation. 
 
86 THIRD POSTULATE. 
 
 Third. That the law of reproduction 
 aftei' Ms hindj is a Divine law, and that its 
 violation was, and by inference is, an 
 oifence in the sight of God. 
 
 Fourth. That reproduction has been 
 confined within certain limits, even among 
 hinds^ by the Mosaic law of prohibition of 
 marriage of near akin, and that that law 
 has existed from the creation. 
 
 In support of these positions we quote : 
 
 Gen. vi. 1. And it came to pass when Ha-Ada]\i, or The 
 Adam (of the Garden of Eden), l^egan to multiply 
 upon the face of the earth, and daughters were 
 born unto them. 
 
 Gen. vi. 2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of 
 Ha- Adam, or The Au.V]m, that they were fair ; and 
 they took them wives of all v»iiich they chose. 
 
 Gen. vi. B. And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not 
 always strive with Adam, for that he also is 
 flenli : yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty 
 years. 
 
 Gen. vi. 4. And there were giants in the earth in those 
 days ; and also after that, when the sons of God 
 came In unto the daughters of Ha-Adam, or The 
 Adam, and they bare childi-en to them, the 
 same became mighty men which were of old, men 
 of renown. 
 
THIRD POSTULATE. 8Y 
 
 Gen. vi. 5. And God saw that the wickedn"ss of IIa- 
 AD.vii, or The Ad^v^i, was great in the earth, and 
 that every imagination of the thoughts of his hcait 
 was only evil continually ; and it repented God that 
 Ho had made Ha-xVdam, or The Adam, on the earth, 
 and it grieved him at His heart. 
 
 Gen. vi. 7. And the Lord said, I will destroy IIa-Adam, 
 or The Adam, whom I have created from the face 
 of the earth, from Adam unto beast and the creep- 
 ing things, and the fowls of the air ; for it repcnt- 
 eth me that I have made them. 
 
 Ill tlie first, second, and fourth verses 
 above, the translators have substituted 
 7nen for Ha- Ad am, or The Adam, found in 
 the Hebrew. In the third, fifth, sixth, 
 and seventh, they have inserted man for 
 the same ! We have said enough about 
 mutilation, and only refer to the fact. 
 The question arises, was God pleased at 
 the marriage of the daughters of Ha- Adam, 
 or The Adam of the Garden of Eden, 
 whether they were the daughters of Adam 
 and Eve, or whether they were descended 
 from them ? We see by this account tliat 
 He was exceedingly displeased, even to re- 
 
88 THIED POSTULATE. 
 
 penting that lie had made Ha- Adam, or 
 The Adam. There are two points to be 
 noticed in .this narrative as the cause of 
 God's anger. 
 
 First. That the sons of God took wives 
 of the daughters of Ha-Adam or The 
 Adam; that is, married them. 
 
 Second. That the daughters bore chil- 
 dren of the sons of God. 
 
 This, God declared to be a great wick- 
 edness, and one sufficient to destroy the 
 Ha- Adams, or The Adams, by a flood. If, 
 then, Adam and Eve were the only two 
 made on the day of creation, and they 
 were commanded by God to increase and 
 multiply and replenish the earth, why 
 should God be so angered and declare it a 
 wickedness for any of the descendants of 
 Adam and Eve to marry each other, to 
 carry out His command, and have children, 
 as in this case. If the sons of God were 
 the descendants of Adam and Eve, what 
 
THIRD POSTULATE. 89 
 
 possible sin could there have been in obey- 
 ing the command of God ? 
 
 On the construction that Adam and Eve 
 were the only paii' made on the day of 
 creation, who were the sons of God to 
 marry except their daughters or their 
 descendants ? The simple act of marrying 
 or having children under these circum- 
 stances could not have been the sin, and 
 as sin was committed, and a grievous 
 sin, too, what did it consist in ? What 
 law of God did these acts violate ? As the 
 sin is impossible in this direction, let us 
 turn in another and see if we can discover 
 any command of God that will make such 
 an act a sin ; or in other words, let us see if 
 we can discover a relationship that would 
 make it so by any declared law of God. 
 
 Let us suppose that the sons of God 
 were not the same hind of people (for ^ve 
 use the Scriptural phrase and not an ethno- 
 logical one), and that their hind had their 
 
90 THIED POSTULATE. 
 
 head in production in tlie Adam male and 
 female^ on the day of creation. How will 
 this solve the question ? Is there any law 
 of God that would make such an act a 
 sin ? Is there any law that governs the 
 production of children? We think there 
 is, and one which has been overlooked 
 entirely : 
 
 Gen. i. 24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth tJie 
 soul of life or the limng creature after his Mnd, etc. 
 
 In the case under consideration, the 
 descendants of Adam and Eve being 
 assumed as one Mnd., and the sons of God 
 not descended from Adam and Eve, but 
 from Adam male and female^ another hind^ 
 can we see how, by their marriage and 
 having children, this law of reproduction 
 was violated? If they were of different 
 hinds of people, their childi-en would not 
 belong to either hind^ but would be hybrid 
 Hebrews and liyhrid sons of God. The 
 
THIRD POSTULATE. 91 
 
 cliilclren not being reproduced after Ids 
 hincl^ would .be a violation of the law of 
 reproduction as stated in tlie day of 
 creation. 
 
 In this view of the case it becomes 
 imperative to examine the law of reproduc- 
 tion, and see whether it is a Divine law, and 
 whether it was intended to apply to man- 
 kind. The constructionists of the unity 
 say No — that it was only aj)pli cable to the 
 brute creations of the sixth day. Let us, 
 then, put the law down, and look at it, 
 read and see what Moses says : 
 
 Gen. i. 24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth tlie 
 living creature or soul of life after Ids hind, cattle, 
 and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after Ms 
 Mnd : and it was so. 
 
 We now ask any candid mind to say, if 
 this was intended alone for cattle, beasts of 
 the earth, and creeping things, whether 
 the verse in the following shape would not 
 cover entirely such a supposition : 
 
92 THIRD POSTULATE. 
 
 Gen. i. 24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the 
 cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth 
 after his kind : and it was so. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 This covers tlie entire ground of tlie 
 brute creation, that they should be brought 
 forth after Ms hind. Then what becomes 
 of the first portion of tlie verse, and of 
 what possible use was it to express this 
 idea, that while the amended verse ex- 
 presses all that the constructionists of the 
 unity require, there is still a very imjDor- 
 tant part of the verse left out, which they 
 do not require and do not w^ant, nor have 
 they paid any attention to it 1 Remember 
 that this law stands at the very head of 
 the creations of the sixth day, wherein 
 nothing: but livino^ creatures were to be 
 brouo:ht into existence. Then has Moses 
 made a mistake by making the law cover 
 mankind, or did he intend it should apply 
 to them? The constructionists deny that it 
 thus applies, by which, in substance, they 
 
THIRD POSTULATE. 93 
 
 indicate that Moses has said what lie did 
 not mean. For there is no questioning the 
 fact that mankind are living creatures of 
 God. 
 
 Then we see this law in practical opera- 
 tion in the various kinds of men and 
 women reproduced on the earth, and have 
 been so reproduced duiing all knowledge ; 
 a law, too, which every man depends upon 
 to decide the character of his j^i'ogeny. 
 We must ao-ain record our adherence to 
 this Divine law of God and give it full 
 force and scope, relying upon observation 
 to teach us what hinds mean when applied 
 to the human race. No attempt shall 
 come from us to contract the law or mis- 
 apply it; the only field for its explanation 
 being found in the unchanging acts of God 
 in this direction, the safest and best 
 authority for any construction. 
 
 To our mind this law is of the same im- 
 portance and binding effect for observance 
 
94 THIRD POSTULATE. 
 
 as either of tlie ten commaiidment>s, or any 
 other high moral law. To ignore it or 
 deny its application is to destroy what we 
 regard as the most important law of exist- 
 ence and continuance of the human family, 
 displaying the supreme wisdom of God. 
 
 The anger of God at the marriage and 
 producing children of the sons of God by 
 the daughters of Ha-Adam, not only seems 
 to prove the law of reproduction, but also 
 proves that the sons of God were not the 
 same Mnd of people as the Hebrews 
 Adam and Eve, and their descendants. 
 
 For, His declaring it a wickedness shows 
 there was a command and law violated, 
 and there is no other law that we know of, 
 or can conceive of, that could be violated 
 by any other supposition ; and as we find a 
 law relating to the production of children, 
 we must conclude that this is the law that 
 was violated. Hence the sons of God were 
 not descendants of Adam and Eve, and 
 
THIRD POSTULATE. 95 
 
 must be accounted for as having descended 
 from Ada:m male and female, tlieir makinix 
 beinor recorded in Gen. i. 26. 
 
 The marriage of Cain and Seth ^vith 
 their sisters is a necessary consequence of 
 the human race having descended from 
 Adam and Eve. We will see \v^hether 
 such (to us in this day) repulsive supposi- 
 tion is borne out by Scripture. The lec- 
 ofd nowhere asserts the fact, and the idea 
 is a manism. 
 
 Leviticus xviii. 1. And God spake unto Moses, saying. 
 Leviticus xviii. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel and 
 
 say unto them, I am the Lord your God. 
 Leviticus xviii. 3. After the doings of the laud of 
 
 Egypt, wlierein ye dwelt, shall ye not do : and after 
 
 the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring 
 
 you, shall ye 7iot do : neither shall ye walk in their 
 
 ordinances. 
 Leviticus x^nii. 4. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep 
 
 mine ordinances, to walk therein : I am the Lord. 
 Leviticus xviii. 5. Ye shall therefore keep mi/ statutes 
 
 and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live 
 
 in them : I am the Lord. 
 Leviticus xviii. 6. No one shall approach to any that is 
 
 near of kin to him to uncoder their nahedness. 
 
96 THIED POSTULATE. 
 
 Leviticus xviii. 9. The nakedness of thy sister, the 
 daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, 
 whether she be born at home or born abroad, even 
 their nakedness thou shalt not uncover : for theirs 
 is thine own nakedness. 
 
 Leviticus xviii. 10. The nakedness of thy son's daugh- 
 ter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their na- 
 kedness thou shalt not uncover : for theirs is thine 
 own nakedness. 
 
 Leviticus xviii. 11. The nakedness of thy father's wife's 
 daughter, begotten of thy father (she is thy siste?'), 
 thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 
 
 Our space does not allow of further quo- 
 tations from this chapter, which is filled 
 with denunciations of God, that it was 
 against His statutes and judgments for near 
 akin to marry or be given in marriage. 
 Why were these laws not proclaimed 
 earlier than 1490 years before Christ? 
 The fair inference is that they were not 
 violated until, as recorded, it was done in 
 the land of Egypt. 
 
 Lev. xviii. 3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, 
 wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do : and after the 
 doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, 
 shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their 
 ordinances. 
 
THIED POSTULATE. 97 
 
 Lev. xviii. 4. Ye shall do nuj judgments, and keep my 
 ordinances, to walk therein : I ain the Lord your 
 God. 
 
 Are the commands, judgments, and stat- 
 utes of God variable, changing, uncertain, 
 and made to fit circumstances ? We have 
 always been taught, and so have read, that 
 they are eternal, from everlasting to ever- 
 lasting, unchangeable and unchanged. It 
 mattered not what date they reached hu- 
 manity: they were the same from the be- 
 ginning, and would continue so to the end. 
 We believe that all natural and moral laws 
 have existed forever, and that their opera- 
 tion commenced with the creation, and that 
 tRey will always continue. At the same 
 time we fi-eely leave others to believe in 
 accordance with their information and the 
 promptings of their own consciences. 
 
 We therefore conclude that the mar- 
 riao-e of Cain or Seth with theii' sisters or 
 near akin, as laid down in Leviticus xviii., 
 
 5 
 
98 THIED POSTULATE. 
 
 would liave been in violation of God's com- 
 mands, statutes, and judgments, and that 
 lience He provided other Hebrews in the 
 creation, by which neither these laws nor 
 the law of reproduction after his hiiid 
 would be violated. These Divine laws 
 force the construction of Gen. i. 27, and 
 make it necessary that more Hebrews should 
 have been created than Adam and Eve, and 
 that their creation must be found in the 
 words " male and female created He them," 
 Gen. i. 27. 
 
 As we have been taught, so we believe, 
 that man is a free agent to violate or obey 
 Divine statutes, ordinances, and judgments. 
 That his capability to violate is based •in 
 Divine law, which gives him the ability to 
 do so, equally with his ability to obey. 
 That the choice lies with him which laws of 
 God he will obey, or which violate, what- 
 ever he does being done in accordance with 
 existing laws, moral or natural. It might 
 
THIRD POSTULATE. 99 
 
 be a i:)ertineut inquiry, if liybriclity was in 
 violation of the laws of God, why did He 
 make the law? The answer is found 
 above. We might as well ask the ques- 
 tion. If eating the forbidden fruit was 
 against God's will or law, why was the law 
 made allowing The Adam to eat it ? 
 
 It is well known what the calamitous 
 results to j)rogeny are from marriages of 
 near akin in hind. And it is equally ^vell 
 known that hybrids run to impotency. 
 Then is there nothing in these well-known 
 facts to assure us that they are antagonistic 
 to natural laws ? If we will draw no sound 
 lesson from the acts of God in nature, Avill 
 we refuse to regard them as Divine laws, 
 when we find them laid down in Scripture, 
 verified by our daily experience? Had we 
 not better see whether we have read the 
 word aright, than discard the acts of God 
 on our conceited reading ? While we have 
 always seen these acts in uniformity, we 
 
100 THIED POSTULATE. 
 
 gain new ideas from reading ; and as is well 
 known, all do not read the Scrij)tures alike, 
 and hence we may doubt our construction 
 and reading of Holy Writ, but we never 
 need doubt tlie acts of God we see and know. 
 Then, if we do not set aside this portion 
 of God's word, " Let the earth bring forth 
 the living creature after his kind," where 
 shall we look for the origin in the day of 
 creation of the beginning of the kinds of men 
 and women now found on the earth, being 
 persistently reproduced after Ms hindf If 
 this law be regarded and received by men, 
 how shall we apply it ? Can we admit its 
 binding nature, and still give no scope for 
 its foundation and operation? Shall we 
 say the law was made and is still in exist- 
 ence, and deny the creation of its subject 
 and its efficacy in Nature ? Should we not 
 rather search in the creative account for 
 that subject, and thread Nature to discover 
 its application ? 
 
THIRD POSTULATE. 101 
 
 Tlien, for what purpose does Moses re- 
 cord the making of Ada]\i male and female 
 man in Gen. i. 26, and creating Tiie Ada^vi 
 and male and female in Gen. i. 27 ? To be 
 mer2:ed into the making^ of one man and 
 one woman, whose progeny, according to 
 the law of reproduction, must be of one 
 kind, while the various kinds of peoples 
 reproduced in accordance with the law 
 make the supposition a deadlock with it. 
 
 A law of God can be traced as truly 
 backward to the creation as it ever worked 
 forward from it. 
 
 By restoring to our Bible the names 
 and terms which God placed in the orig- 
 inal, and giving full scope and force to the 
 law of rejDroduction, we have a beautifully 
 consistent and true account of the creation 
 of mankind, and of their reproduction to 
 the present houi\ Whatever of kinds of 
 men and women are now upon the earth, 
 each of these kinds will be found in origin, 
 
102 THIRD POSTULATE. 
 
 in one or tlie other of Gen. i. 26, or Gen. i. 
 27. 
 
 The flood, which has been construed as 
 destroying all of the human race excejDt 
 Noah and his family, has been the great 
 stumbling-block in the way of such an 
 acceptance of the word, and j)i'^^^^ly 
 was the real author of the eliminations 
 and substitutions Ave have referred to. 
 We shall see, when we come to this part of 
 the subject, wherein that reading is not 
 borne out by the record. 
 
 We then conclude that the Genesis i. 26 
 was written for information to man, that a 
 class of people, male and female, were 
 made by God to people the world. He 
 did not leave them simply made to take 
 care of themselves by chance, or without 
 laws to empower them to reproduce them- 
 selves. His inspired recorder of His acts 
 informs us that He made them male and 
 female, commanded them to increase and 
 
O^HIRD POSTULATE. 103 
 
 multiply, and replenish the earth, and also 
 tells us of the command of God in what 
 manner they should evolve the progeny 
 fi-om the parent, that the progeny should 
 be of the kind of the parent, and they 
 again should be parent to other progeny of 
 the same kind. Thus chains of human 
 beino^s should extend from the creation to 
 the end, each chain of the same kind. 
 When vre have seen one link in any one 
 chain, we have substantially seen every 
 other link from the beo^inninor to the end. 
 No evolution fi-om the one -to the other 
 could possibly take place, because the laws 
 of God are unchanging forever. 
 
FOUKTH POSTULATE. 
 
 That the Genesis i. 27 is devoted exclusively to the ac- 
 count of the creation of the heads of the Hebrew 
 kind. That Ha- Adam, or The Adam, was a male 
 created and placed in the Garden of Eden, with Eve 
 his wife. That there were other male and female 
 Hebrews created, as recorded in the same verse. That 
 Noah and his family became the second heads of the 
 Adam and Eve line of reproduction after the flood. 
 
 The proof of this postulate mainly de- 
 pends upon the recognition of the Divine 
 law of reproduction after Ms hind. If 
 this law, or a law regulating reproduction 
 of the human species, be ignored and set 
 aside, we could expect from Noah any- 
 where and at any time in his line of repro- 
 duction, the Negro, the Hottentot, the 
 Australian, the Mongol, or the Indian. 
 And by thus setting aside this law, any 
 one of the advocates of the unity of the 
 race could in like manner be rewarded in 
 
FOURTH POSTULATE. 105 
 
 tlieii' little family circle. If this could be 
 accoinplislied by man, he might then turn 
 his attention to the vegetable or animal 
 kingdoms, and reproduce from any one of 
 either, all others that he might crave for 
 his wants. 
 
 While men have practically denied this 
 law of reproduction, and have been en- 
 deavoring to prove just what we have 
 above stated in respect to Noah's line, and 
 in order to aid such proof, have b'een set- 
 ting forth to the world a garbled account 
 as of Moses, God has been pursuing His 
 uniform, unchanging course in the execu- 
 tion of His creative law of reproduction, in 
 all the departments of His creation to 
 which it apj)lies. We then give force, 
 vitality, and meaning to the law, and re- 
 gard all facts based uj^on it as truths. 
 
 In considering this postulate, we take the 
 Genesis i. 27, on which it depends as it ap- 
 pears in the Hebrew, and not as it appears 
 
 5* 
 
106 FOURTH POSTULATE. 
 
 in tlie translation. If the Genesis i. 26 be 
 not read as it stands in the Hebrew record 
 also, our proof would fall to the ground. 
 The law of reproduction applying equally 
 to both, each must be read as a class of 
 creations and makings, however small or 
 large that class may have been. The 
 machinery of the Genesis is so accurately 
 balanced, that every part must be consid- 
 ered as a whole, and complete as a whole, 
 or confusion is the result. 
 
 The following facts as they appear in the 
 record must be admitted. 
 
 First. That the class Adam, male and 
 female man, were made in Genesis i. 26. 
 
 Second. That Ha- Adam, or The Adam, 
 and the class male and female, were created 
 Genesis i. 27. 
 
 Third. That the making and creating 
 of these two classes were different acts, be- 
 ing separated from each other by the word 
 And. 
 
FOURTH POSTULATE. 107 
 
 Fourth. The reco2:nition of tlie Divine 
 law of rejDroduction. And God said, " Let 
 tlie eartli bring fortli tlie living creature 
 after his kind." 
 
 Fifth. To recognize the fact as stated by- 
 Moses, Genesis v. 1 : This is the book of the 
 generations of Adam (the individual). In 
 the day that God created Adam, in the like- 
 ness of God made He him ; and that the 
 book gives a true account, as stated, of the 
 generations of Adam. 
 
 No one will deny that these four points 
 are in the Hebrew record, the construc- 
 tion which some may put upon them 
 havino^ no relation to the fact. Nor have 
 we assumed any more premises than are to 
 be found in the pure word of God in the 
 Hebrew, though they are quite different, 
 and would scarce be recognized, in the 
 translation. 
 
 On the fifth point hangs a very large 
 burden of our proof, and we may remark 
 
108 rOUETH POSTULATE. 
 
 that in looking at this declaration, and 
 giving it full scope, many things will be 
 made clear and intelligible which otherwise 
 would remain hidden or confused. The 
 true meaning of it seems to be, "Now 
 readers, take particular notice ; I, Moses, 
 am going to give in this book an accurate 
 account of the generations of Adam and 
 Eve, and you must not read me that I am 
 going to give an account in generation of 
 any one else." Then if we credit him, we 
 must assume that as far as he gives an ac- 
 count of these generations, he did it accu- 
 rately, and none others are to be assumed 
 or added. 
 
 The Hebrews have generally been 
 arranged under the Caucasian head. 
 From all that we can gather from the 
 Bible and other sources of information, we 
 think the Hebrew Mnd is one of the kinds 
 intended in the Divine law of reproduction. 
 They have always been, and are at this 
 
FOURTH POSTULATE. 109 
 
 day, a distinct people, botli in cliaracter and 
 in reproduction. We think this is the gen- 
 erally received opinion, and more especially 
 of the Jews, a conventional branch of the 
 Hebrews. 
 
 This people are the chosen of God, and 
 why? The reason for the choice cannot be 
 assigned, but what has been done with and 
 through them can be gleaned from their 
 history, threaded through the Old and into 
 the New Testament. The representative 
 man of the Hebrew kind in the day of cre- 
 ation was Ha-Ada3i, or The Adam j^laced 
 in the Garden of Eden. After God had 
 made mankind upon the earth, it became 
 necessary that he should manifest Him- 
 self to them in some way, to accomplish 
 the end of their creation. To do this He 
 chose Adam and Eve, and placed them in 
 the Garden of Eden, and from all we can 
 learn to manifest Himself to them, and 
 teach them His Divine will or law. 
 
110 FOURTH POSTULATE. 
 
 He did so ; He proclaimed His law, and the 
 penalty for its violation. The law was vio- 
 lated and the penalty followed. If, then, 
 His specially created and chosen pair could 
 not withstand temptation, what could He 
 expect others, not so favored, would do 
 under like circumstances. Through this 
 pair and their progeny. His design evidently 
 was to publish to mankind His moral laws, 
 to reflect Himself and His attributes to all 
 generations of men. What was applicable 
 to them was to be alike applicable to all ; 
 what was to be their happiness in obedi- 
 ence, was to be the happiness of all created ; 
 what their penalties for disobedience, were 
 the penalties to all. 
 
 He sjDoke the universal word to mankind, 
 when He spoke to one man and one woman 
 chosen for that purpose. What He com- 
 manded to them, He commanded to all — 
 what He promised to them. He promised to 
 all ; what He wished of them, He wished of 
 
FOUETH POSTULATE. Ill 
 
 all ; in fine, that they were the chosen rep- 
 resentatives of the human family, to wit- 
 ness the presence of God, and receive from 
 Him the command of obedience to His will, 
 and the results of that test were to apply 
 equally to all men. 
 
 We do not suppose that our individual 
 theology will square with most received 
 theologies, but, in our crude way, this Is 
 the. substance of what we gather from the 
 record. Nor is it expected to agree with 
 any theology founded upon a single pas- 
 sage of Scripture. It would be truly a 
 great discovery, if any one should be able 
 to harmonize the various views and con- 
 structions which are claimed to be founded 
 on the word of God. We do not wish to 
 be considered as laying down any particu- 
 lar theology, or endeavoring to support 
 one. All we propose to do is, to state 
 facts found in the inspii'ed Hebrew record, 
 which we believe exactly in accordance 
 
112 FOURTH POSTULATE. 
 
 with those facts, leaving others to exercise 
 the free will that God has given them to 
 accept or reject them; to act in conform, 
 ity to them, or ignore them. This is the 
 principle of the privilege which God gave 
 to Adam and Eve and to all mankind. 
 
 We have shown, we think, clearly, in the 
 previous postulate, that Cain could not 
 have married his sister ^vdthout violation 
 of Divine statutes and judgments, of the 
 Levitical law of marriao-e of near akin. 
 But we propose now to show that he could 
 not have married his sister, because, when 
 he was married, no such being existed. 
 
 Gen. iv, 16. And Cain went out from the presence of 
 the Lord, and dwelt in the Land of Nod, on the 
 east of Eden. 
 
 Gen. iv. 17. And Cain knew his wife, and she con- 
 ceived and bare Enoch, and he builded a city, and 
 called the name of the city after the name of his 
 son, Enoch. 
 
 If Moses had not closed the subject of 
 the daughters of Adam and Eve, our 
 imagination might have supplied one for 
 
FOURTH POSTULATE. 113 
 
 the ^yife of Cain. • But the first mention of 
 daughters to them is recorded : 
 
 Gen. V. 4. And the days of Ad.vm, after he had be- 
 gotten Seth, were eight hundi'ed years, and he 
 begat sons and daughters. 
 
 No daughters were therefore recorded as 
 born to Adam and Eve, until after the 
 birth of Seth ; and how long after, the rec- 
 ord does not state. We do not intend to 
 be so narrow, as to claim that every one 
 of Adam and Eve's generations are laid 
 down in the book ; but we do hold, that as 
 far as Moses did record them, the record is 
 true. He having pointedly called atten- 
 tion to the fact that he was giving the gen- 
 erations of The Adam, is it justice even to 
 a common historian to interpolate upon his 
 work others whom he does not mention; 
 and, still more, is it for any one professing 
 to be a believing Christian in the accuracy 
 of revelation, to add as against the exjDress 
 warning of the inspired \\Titer ? 
 
114 FOUETH POSTULATE. 
 
 Who, then, will assume to force into the 
 word of God, daughters of The Adam, be- 
 fore the inspired writer informs us they 
 were born unto him? Moses, in his step- 
 ping aside from this narrative, has warned 
 his readers not to insert in his record, be- 
 cause he declares what he says is the record 
 of the generations of The Adam. The 
 construction of the unity of the race upon 
 the mutilations we have seen, requires that 
 Cain should have married a daughter of 
 Adam and Eve, when, by the authority of 
 Moses, no such daughter had been born. 
 Are such constructions and teachings cal- 
 culated to inspire confidence in the truth of 
 Holy "Writ, and hence to advance the cause 
 of Christianity ? We think not. 
 
 Further than this, Cain not only married 
 his wife, but builded a city before daugh- 
 ters were born unto Adam and Eve ; so 
 says the record in chronological order of 
 statements. The matter resolves itself into 
 
rOURXn POSTULATE. 115 
 
 tills : that Moses says Cain did marry a 
 woman in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 
 He also says, Adam and Eve had no daugh- 
 ters born at that time. The question arises, 
 who did he marry ? The constructionists 
 of the unity of the race say that he married 
 a dau2:hter of Adam and Eve. As the dis- 
 pute is between them and Moses, we shall 
 not interfere, but simply pass on and 
 record our belief that he married a Hebrew 
 woman created for that purpose, in the 
 class of Gen. i. 27 : " Male and female 
 created He them," in order that he should 
 reproduce Hebrews after his kind. 
 
 Let us now examine the record as to the 
 creation of the Hebrew kind. 
 
 Gen. i. 27. Axd God created Ha- Adam, or The Adam, 
 in His own image, in the image of God created He 
 him. Male and female created He them. 
 
 It cannot be denied, considering the law 
 of reproduction, that The Adaji was the 
 representative man of the Hebrew kind, 
 
116 FOUETH POSTULATE. 
 
 and Avas therefore a Hebrew himself. That 
 Eve was the representative woman of the 
 same kind, and therefore a Hebrew woman. 
 Their generations were consequently He- 
 brews. Cain was a Hebrew, Seth was a 
 Hebrew, and Noah and his family were 
 Hebrews, because their generations are 
 traceable through the Old and into the 
 New Testament, where they are recognized 
 as Hebrews, or Jews, the same thing in 
 reproduction. 
 
 Let any normal reader take up the 
 Genesis i. 27, without ever having heard 
 any construction put upon it, and what 
 would be his reading of it ? Would he gain 
 the idea that it meant the creation of one 
 man and one woman ? We think not. 
 But that opinion is of no account, without 
 we can show why. In the first place, 
 suppose there was only this much of 
 
 Gen. i. 27. And God created The Adam in His own 
 image, in the image of God created He Mm. 
 
FOURTH POSTULATE. 117 
 
 Would there be a consistent and com- 
 plete idea presented to the reader ? Would 
 this be an act of creation complete in 
 itself, and would it be sufficient to declare 
 and make intelligible the creation of The 
 Adam ? Would not the idea conveyed be 
 as clear as that in 
 
 Gen, V. 1 . This is the book of the generations of Adam. 
 In the day that God created ADA:Nr, in the likeness 
 of God made He him. 
 
 We think the idea is clear, and the 
 creation complete by the announcement. 
 If this be so, then The Adam was created 
 as stated, and that creation was complete. 
 Now, what else was done? "Male and 
 female created He them." Is the account 
 true or untrue? Was male and female 
 created also as stated, or were they not ? 
 The account says they were ; we therefore 
 believe it, and so say that The Ada:\[ was 
 created, and he was a male creation ; and, 
 in addition, male and female were . created. 
 
118 FOUETH POSTULATE. 
 
 But the constructionists of the unity say, 
 " That The Adam was created to be sure 
 as The Adam, but afterwards as the male^ 
 for this verse only calls for the creation of 
 one man and one woman." That is, that 
 The Adam was created tivice^ and the 
 woman once. As we said in the case of 
 Cain, this is a question between them and 
 the record ; they have the right to accept it 
 or reject it. All we claim is the right to 
 read it as it stands, and believe it accord- 
 ingly ; and consequently, we record our be- 
 lief in the accuracy of it, and say that God 
 created The Adam, and that He also created 
 the Class : " Male and female created He 
 them." That every word in the Genesis i. 
 27 stands for a meaning of itself; that 
 there is no repetition or tautology; that 
 there was no work of God done over twice, 
 and Moses meant just what he said in the 
 record. 
 
 These being Hebrews, furnished Hebrew 
 
FOURTn POSTULATE. 110 
 
 women for wives of Cain and Setli, and 
 their generations wives and husl^ands for 
 the generations of Adajh and Eve, to carry 
 out the law of reproduction, and not vio- 
 late the prohibitory law laid down in 
 Leviticus, of marriage of near akin. Nor 
 do we pretend to say how many Hebrews 
 were made in the beginning, but we have 
 sufficient confidence in the wisdom of God 
 to believe that He made as many as was 
 necessary to carry out His design of crea- 
 tion without scrimping Himself to such 
 numbers as would cause the violation of 
 His fundamental laws on the very thresh- 
 old of creation. 
 
 While Genesis i. 27 gives the account of 
 the creation of Adam and Eve, the specifica- 
 tion of the mode and manner of their making 
 is recorded in another part of Scripture : 
 
 Gen. ii. 7. And the Lord God formed R\-AD-N3r, or The 
 Adam, of the dust of the ground, and breathed 
 into his nostrils the breath of life ; and The \dx}I 
 became a livincc soul. 
 
120 FOURTH POSTULATE. 
 
 Gen. ii. 22. And the rib, which the Lord God had 
 taken from The Adaji, made He a woman, and 
 brought her unto The Adam. 
 
 Gen. ii. 23. And The Adam said. This is now bone of 
 my bones, and flesh of my flesh : she shall be 
 called Woman, because she was taken out of man. 
 
 As a verification of the law of reproduc- 
 tion applying to tlie human race, we see 
 the expression used when The Adam was 
 made^ in Genesis ii. 7, namely, that he 
 " became a living souV The expression 
 in the Hebrew in that law is, " the soul of 
 life." If there is any difference, we cannot 
 apprehend it. • 
 
 It is conceded that The Adam of the 
 Garden of Eden was the first man made 
 on "the day of creation. Enough, however, 
 for us to know, to gain a correct under- 
 standing as to the fact as laid down in the 
 record, that he was made on the sixth day ; 
 and his creation is recorded in Genesis i. 
 27, and the manner of making Adam and 
 Eve is recorded in Genesis ii. 7, 22. The 
 
FOURTH POSTULATE. 121 
 
 general scope of tlie reading of Genesis i. 
 26 would indicate that when God said, 
 Let us make Adam male and female man, 
 that all were included in the class except 
 the Hebrews, and that the separate record 
 of the creation of Tile Adam, and male and 
 female, apj)lied to the chosen people of God. 
 If we will not place our own judgments 
 and constructions superior to the word of 
 God, we have sufficient here to satisfy all 
 the phenomena connected with the human 
 race. We need not vaunt ourselves that 
 we can explain or understand all^ but we 
 can read the word of God as given to us, 
 and as it stands^ and be thankful that He 
 has thus far revealed His ways and His 
 works, that we may glean a few rays of 
 lio'ht to show us the outlines of His crea- 
 tion, and cause us to know the source from 
 whence we came. He has also given us eyes 
 to see and ears to hear. Let us use the former 
 to verify, but not to destroy. His word. 
 
 6 
 
FIFTH POSTULATE. 
 
 That the Hebrew Genesis records the destruction by flood 
 of the generations of Adam and Eve, except Noah 
 and his family, but nothing more of the human crea- 
 tion. 
 
 The construction that has been put upon 
 this portion of the Genesis is, that the flood 
 was universal over the whole face of the 
 earth, and destroyed everything on it ex- 
 cept what was preserved in the ark. This, 
 however, is the broad and careless reading 
 of the account. What was to be destroyed, 
 and what was destroyed, were defined so 
 clearly, and the limits of destruction so 
 plainly laid down by the inspired writer, 
 that when they are pointed out they are 
 unmistakable; and, in our opinion, there 
 should be but one conclusion as to the ex- 
 tent of the flood. 
 
FIFTH POSTULATE. 123 
 
 Nor do the constructionists of the unity 
 of the race claim more in respect to the 
 destruction of mankind than that the gen- 
 erations of Ada3I and Eve were so de- 
 stroyed, since they claim there were no 
 other people on the face of the whole 
 earth. That God, in order to destroy the 
 few people laid do^vn by Moses as the 
 generations of Ada^i and Eat: — knotted 
 together as they always were till after 
 theii* dispersion from the tower of Babel — 
 should thus destroy all His created work in 
 the two hemispheres to accomj^lish this ob- 
 ject, to say the least, according to our ways 
 of thinking, was unnecessary, and a waste 
 of creative wisdom. 
 
 Moses, in his accuracy of the record of 
 the destruction, has, however, relieved God 
 and the account of any such supposition. 
 The j)oint, then, of difference between the 
 constructionists of the unity and their op- 
 ponents respecting the flood is, whether it 
 
124 FIFTH POSTULATE. 
 
 was universal over the face of the lohole 
 earthy both agreeing that the descendants 
 of Adam and Eve were destroyed, except 
 Noah and his family, and everything in 
 their connection necessary to such destruc- 
 tion. 
 
 Then the question resolves itself into 
 this : Moses having given an account of the 
 creating of other j)eoples than Adam and 
 Eve, and given an account of the destruc- 
 tion of the generations of the latter by say- 
 ing that they were to be destroyed for cer- 
 tain specific reasons, and winding up the 
 account by declaring that they were de- 
 stroyed — whether man would be justified 
 in putting into that destruction jDeoples who 
 were not to be destroyed and who are not 
 named in the list destroyed. The question 
 is not as open in the record as this, even, 
 for the destruction is confined within very 
 narrow limits, which no invention or sophis- 
 try of man can expand. 
 
FIFTH POSTULATE. 125 
 
 What are those limits ? 
 
 Gen. V. 1. This is the book of the generations of Adam. 
 In the clay that God created Adam, in the likeness 
 of God made He him. 
 
 Gen. vi. 7. ^Vnd God said, I will destroy Ha-Adam, The 
 Adam, whom I have created from the face of the 
 earth; from Adam unto beast, and the creeping 
 thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth 
 me tliat I have made them. 
 
 Gen. vii. 21. And all flesh died that moved upon the 
 earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, 
 and of every creeping thing that creepetli upon 
 the earth, and every Ha-Adam, or The Adam. 
 
 If there ever was a glaring error foisted 
 upon the world by translators, it occurs 
 just here in the account of the flood. By 
 referring to the eleven chapters of Genesis, 
 in the latter end of this book, the reader 
 will see the unwarrantable use made of 
 the word man^ instead of the name Ha- 
 Adam or The Adam. These two verses 
 above read in the translation thus : 
 
 Gen. vi. 7. And the Lord said, I will destroy man 
 whom I have created from the face of tlie earth ; 
 both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and 
 
126 FIFTH POSTULATE. 
 
 the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I 
 have made them. 
 Gen. vii. 21. And all flesh died that moved upon the 
 earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, 
 and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the 
 earth, and every man. 
 
 Sucli a wide departure from the word of 
 God would make tlie blood tingle in the 
 veins of every Christian on its discovery. 
 'No man will deny that The Adam is not 
 in the original inspiration in these verses, 
 nor that man is substituted for it in the 
 translation. Now what effect is produced 
 upon our Bible by the use of the word man 
 for The Adam. If God, in His wisdom, 
 made more men and women in the begin- 
 ning than Adam and Eve, the translation 
 declares that every man was destroyed, in- 
 stead of every descendant of Adam and 
 Eve, or The Adaiii, as the record is. This 
 flatly denies the Mosaic account, if more 
 were made in the beginning than Adam 
 and Eve, while it makes good the construe- 
 
FIFril POSTULATE. 127 
 
 tion of the unity of the race, since Noah 
 would, in accordance with that construc- 
 tion, be the second head of the human 
 family. 
 
 Hence we see that the translators, in- 
 stead of foUowino^ the Hebrew in its names 
 and terms, start out from Gen. i. 26 U'ith 
 the idea of a unity of the race, and make 
 eveiy portion of the Genesis conform to 
 that idea, even to the elimination of words 
 and the substitution of others to accom- 
 plish it. They have well and thoroughly 
 performed their task in this respect, but 
 have done so at the expense of the pure 
 word of God, which they have left behind. 
 They have eliminated one of His principal 
 acts in creation. They have dropped God 
 names from the account, and substituted 
 their manisms, and finally, to crown their 
 work, have erased from the record of the 
 flood its vital essence, and made it conform 
 to their other eliminations and substitutions. 
 
128 FIFTH POSTULATE. 
 
 It would be unfortunate if tlie record of 
 the flood was to be adjudged upon isolated 
 passages. It must be taken as a whole, and 
 judged of by what was to be destroyed and 
 what was so destroyed. For example : 
 
 Gen. vi. 13. And God said unto Noali, The end of all 
 flesh is come before me ; for the earth is filled with 
 violence through them ; and, behold, I will destroy 
 them witli the earth. 
 
 No one would construe that "the end of 
 all flesh is come " meant precisely what it 
 says, because that would involve the total 
 destruction of mankind, when we know 
 that Noah and his family were saved. '^ I 
 will destroy them with the earth " certainly 
 does not mean that God destroyed the 
 earth, or intended to do so. The limits of 
 the destruction were clearly marked out by 
 Moses in the Genesis v. 1, Gen. vi. 7, and 
 Gen. vii. 21. Who will then add or j^ut 
 into the account more than the inspired 
 writer has done, or who will spread the 
 
FIFTH POSTULATE. 129 
 
 boundaries of the flood farther than he has 
 done, to accomplish the end intended ? 
 
 If he says the descendants of Adam and 
 Eve were to be, and were, destroyed, Avho 
 will add other people, if they existed, 
 which we think the account j)lainly calls 
 for? Moses seems to have apprehended 
 this very difEerently when he announces 
 that '' This is the book of the generations 
 of Adam," etc. As much as to say, "there 
 are other people, and you must understand 
 that I am only wiiting about the genera- 
 tions of The Adam, and what I say must he 
 confined to them." If there had not been 
 others on the earth, of what use would be 
 the warning, as it would follow, as a mat- 
 ter of course, that he wrote of The Adam ? 
 
 If the inhabitants of London were to be 
 destroyed by Divine edict in like manner, 
 and the historian had headed the account, 
 telling the world that he was going to re- 
 late not only the causes, but give a full ac- 
 
130 FIFTH POSTULATE. 
 
 count of the transaction, would we under- 
 stand him correctly if he said all flesh was 
 destroyed and everything else except eight 
 individuals, who were excluded from the 
 destruction, and some animals ? Suppose, 
 too, that he used broader language than 
 the description required, would that lan- 
 guage, although meant to be in exact ac- 
 cordance with facts, destroy more than was 
 destroyed, or was proclaimed as to be 
 destroyed ? 
 
 We therefore conclude that the flood did 
 no more in the way of destruction than is 
 stated by Moses, namely : that it was 
 brought on to destroy the descendants of 
 Adam and Eve, except Noah and his fam- 
 ily, and that it did what it was commis- 
 sioned to do, and no more. If Moses had 
 said, as the translators have it, that it 
 destroyed every man except Noah and his 
 family, Noah would at once become the 
 head of the human race, and we should lay 
 
FIFTH POSTULATE. 131 
 
 down our pen. But as it is, wlioevei* Las 
 ^vl•itten every man in God's record, instead 
 of every The Adam, has given a very in- 
 accurate idea of wliat is contained in the 
 Hebrew. He has eliminated God\s ^vord, 
 and substituted his manism, and the Chris- 
 tian world have been reading it under a 
 false meaning. 
 
 Now, let us examine the record as to 
 what disposition was made of Noah, his 
 family, and their generations, and see if 
 there were not other people and other na- 
 tions than the Hebrews existing immedi- 
 ately after the flood. From the tenor of 
 this record, it would seem that God deter- 
 mined to disperse the Hebrews through- 
 out the ^vorld, and especially after they had 
 manifested an intention of building a city 
 for themselves ' and a tower that would 
 make them conspicuous. 
 
 Gen. xi. 3. And they said one to another, Go to, let us 
 make brick, and Inirnthem thoroug'hly. And they 
 had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. 
 
132 FIFTH POSTULATE. 
 
 Gen. xi. 4. And they said, Go to, let us build a city and 
 a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven ; and 
 let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad 
 upon the face of the whole earth. 
 
 Gen. xi. 5. And the Lord came down to see^the city 
 which the children of Ha- Adam, or The Adajm (by 
 translators, men), buildcd. 
 
 Gen. xi. 6. And the Lord said. Behold, the people is 
 one, and they have all one language ; and this they 
 begin to do : and now nothing will be restrained 
 from them, which they have imagined to do. 
 
 Gen. xi. 7. Go to, let us go down, and there confound 
 their language, that they may not understand one 
 another's speech. 
 
 Gen. xi. 8. So the Lord scattered them abroad from 
 thence upon the face of all the earth : and they 
 left off to build the city. 
 
 Gen. xi. 9. Therefore is the name of it called Babel ; be- 
 cause the Lord did there confound the language 
 of all the earth : and from thence did the Lord 
 scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. 
 
 Tlie whole tenor of these seven verses is 
 a comparison with other peoples and with 
 other things. " Go to, let us make brick." 
 " Go to, let us build a city." " Let us 
 make a name." And why? Lest we be 
 weakened and made unable to make our- 
 selves equals with others, by being " scat- 
 tered abroad upon the face of the whole 
 
FIFTH POSTULATE. 133 
 
 earth." It ^vould be a self-evident fact, that 
 if there were no other peoples on the earth 
 beside Noah and his family, and their im- 
 mediate descendants, that they would have 
 one language. It would be unnecessary to 
 state that fact, excej^t language was to be 
 a means of accomplishing the end which 
 God had in view. 
 
 And what is language ? The definition 
 is plainly given in Gen. xi. 7 : Go to, let us 
 go down, and there confound their lan- 
 guage, that tliey may not understand one 
 anotlier''s speech. Hence, language, Script- 
 urally, means the ability to communicate 
 one with another by language, or speech. 
 From this we can determine the grounds 
 and reasons for this act of God towards 
 the Hebrews. First, He would arrest the 
 building of their city and tower by con- 
 founding their language, that they could 
 not communicate with each other ; and sec- 
 ond, in theii' dispersion over the earth, that 
 
134 FIFTH POSTULATE. 
 
 He gave them otlier languages, that they 
 might be able to communicate with those 
 Avho spoke the languages given to them. 
 
 Now, let us see what became of Japheth, 
 one of the sons of Noah, according to this 
 distribution. After giving his generations 
 in Gen. x. 2, 3, 4, we find : 
 
 Gen. X. 5. By these were the isles of the Gentiles di- 
 vided in their lands : every one after his tongue, 
 after their families, in their nations. 
 
 Who were the Gentiles, and why are 
 they found in nations so soon after the 
 flood that the sons of JajDheth should be 
 sent among them, "every one after his 
 tongue, after their families, in their na- 
 tions " ? The Gentiles here are like the 
 sons of God in Gen. vi. 2 : peoples evi- 
 dently not Hebrews, or descendants of 
 Adam and Eve. 
 
 The constructionists of the unity of 
 the race will tell you that the expression 
 " isles of the Gentiles " does not mean that 
 
FIFTH POSTULATE. 135 
 
 the Gentiles occupied those islands at that 
 time, but that they did occupy them after- 
 wards, and before Moses ^vi'ote the account. 
 The normal reading is clear that the Gen- 
 tiles owned the islands if they did not oc- 
 cupy them, and the general reading would 
 be that they occupied them. Is this read- 
 ing contradicted by any other passage of 
 Scripture ? We think not ; and hence we 
 must take Moses at his word, and give this 
 passage its full force. By doing this, 
 doubtful passages in conflict must yield. 
 
 Similar disposition was made of the sons 
 of Ham : 
 
 Gen. X. 20. These are the sons of Ham, after their 
 families, after their tongues, in their countries, and 
 in their nations. 
 
 And, finally, the disposition of the sons 
 of Shem, under the same decree of God : 
 
 Gen. X. 31. These are the sons of Shem, after their 
 families, after their tongues, in their lands, after 
 their nations. 
 
136 FIFTH POSTULATE. 
 
 And now comes the summing uj> of this 
 whole matter of the distribution of the He- 
 Ijrews after the flood, consequent upon their 
 attempt to establish a nation of themselves : 
 
 Gen. X. 32. These are tlie families of the sons of Noah, 
 after their generations, in their nations : and hy these 
 were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. 
 
 There is but one plain proposition in 
 respect to this passage : Could anything 
 be divided that did not exist ? Can this ex- 
 pression be warped by any possible means 
 into the following, which is what is claimed 
 it should be on the construction of the unity 
 of the race ? — 
 
 "These are the families of the sons of 
 Noah, after their generations, in their na- 
 tions : andfroin these did all the nations of 
 the earth spring after the floods 
 
 Moses clearly declares mathematically 
 that there was a divisor and a dividend. 
 The divisor being the families of the sons 
 of Noah, and the dividend being the na- 
 
FIFTH POSTULATE. 137 
 
 tions of the earth. Now, if there was no 
 dividend (nations of the earth), how could 
 there have been a divisor ; or if there were 
 no nations in the earth, why divide ? 
 
 We cannot imagine language more clear, 
 definite, and conclusive than this, to express 
 what was the evident intention of God in 
 confusing the language of the Hebrews 
 at the tower of Babel ; the language dele- 
 gated or assigned to each allotment being 
 the guide of division of the nations of tlie 
 earth, by the generations of Noah. There 
 would be no difficulty in understanding 
 this division, were it not for the construc- 
 tion of the unity ; on that construction it 
 has no positive meaning, except the one 
 usually assigned to it, that these people 
 were distributed upon the earth, but the 
 nations into which they were sent ai'e en- 
 tirely ignored. Even the Gentiles are denied 
 existence at that time, although, from the 
 language, we would infer that they inhal)- 
 
138 FIFTH POSTULATE. 
 
 ited tlie isles spoken of. From all these 
 facts put together and viewed as a whole, 
 our reading is, that the flood destroyed the 
 descendants of Adam and Eve, except 
 Noah and his family. For reasons only 
 known to God, they were split up into 
 fragments, and sent broadcast over the 
 earth ; He having provided them with lan- 
 guages that made such an act practicable 
 in their division among the nations. 
 
THE STUPENDOUS EREOK. 
 
 Whatever construction has been placed 
 by Jew or Gentile upon tlie Genesis re- 
 sj)ecting tlie creation of mankind, wliether 
 it be of tlie unity of tlie race, or a diversity 
 of origin, it has no force to dispel or correct 
 the great error that has crept into our King 
 James translation on this subject. These 
 views may have had much to do with its 
 origin, and very much to do with the main- 
 tenance of it to support these views. But 
 an error is an error, wherever it occm's ; and 
 is great, just in projDortion to the importance 
 of the suljject involved. 
 
 No one word in the EnMish lano^uacre 
 has i^robably ever performed so signal a 
 purpose for good or foi* evil, as the appar- 
 ently insignificant word So has done in our 
 Bil}le, to eliminate a true meaning and con- 
 
140 THE STUPENDOUS EREOE. 
 
 trol a false one. N^or will it be denied by 
 any one that it is the very antij)odes in 
 meaning of the Hebrew word Yay (and), 
 whose place it has usurped. It being a 
 usurper and a stranger to the pure Word 
 of God, we shall not spare him if we can 
 use our pen to demolish him, and point out 
 his false position in the record, and the still 
 falser influence he has swayed over Christian 
 people who, like myself, have read through 
 him, believing that this was a part of the 
 Word of God. 
 
 The machinery of the Genesis respecting 
 the earlier mankind in the Hebrev/ is accu- 
 rate and without fault ; making the acts of 
 God in Nature harmoniously agree with the 
 record. In this respect it may be compared 
 with the delicate works of a finely con- 
 structed watch movement in entire unison 
 and beautiful motion, from the mainspring 
 to the balance-wheel, which has marked off 
 the entrances and exits of every individual 
 
THE STUPENDOUS EEROR. Ill 
 
 man and woman, from tlie day of creation 
 to tlie present moment. An unskilled me- 
 chanic has carelessly dropped the joebble 
 So into these delicate works in the record 
 of them, breaking the mainspring, smash- 
 ing the jDarts generally, and arrested the 
 motion of this accurately moving God-writ- 
 ten machinery. 
 
 Who has done this thing? There are 
 but two sides to this question — the false 
 and the true, and nothing intermediate. 
 Does the Genesis i. 27 in the Hebrew be- 
 gin with Vay (and) ? Is And found at the 
 beginning of this verse in our translation ? 
 No. This word So takes its place, and 
 proclaims to the readers of the BilDle, " I 
 have stricken out one of God's principal 
 acts in creation, and / say there was ])ut 
 one man and one woman made on that day. 
 I have taken this scej^tre into my o^vn 
 hand, and you must read under my rule 
 and under my dictation. I am the alpha 
 
142 THE STUPENDOUS EEEOE. 
 
 and omega of my construction, and no one 
 must question the unity of the race." 
 
 Presumptuous usurper, the armored Go- 
 liath, a wolf in shee23's clothing. Your 
 plausible assumption has drawn millions of 
 Christian minds to your support and de- 
 fence. Your sceptre and rule have bound 
 them like slaves to your standard ; and the 
 eagerness with which they have fought 
 under your banner but proves their sin- 
 cerity as Christians battling for the sup- 
 posed Word of God. You have reigned 
 king over that portion of the account relat- 
 ing to the creation of mankind. You, the 
 smallest of words, have been the greatest 
 usurper, the most wanton deceiver, the 
 most powerful as well as the worst and 
 most supreme of all the kings of errors. 
 
 HOW HAS THIS HAPPENED? 
 
 There never was a case requiring more 
 of Christian leniency and forbearance than 
 
THE STCPEXDOUS ERROR. 143 
 
 the one under consideration. Some will 
 undoubtedly attribute tlie errors spoken of 
 to an intention to make the Scriptures con- 
 form to a theology. This is a short-sighted 
 view of the case, for no man would risk 
 before the world his reputation in this 
 matter, if he had done this intentionally, 
 and no one will make such a charge, know- 
 ing what it means, and understanding the 
 imjDutation which it contains. Men some- 
 times, in the zenith of worldly reputation 
 on certain subjects, are frequently very far 
 from being caj)able of undertakings thrust 
 upon them. 
 
 Nor do we believe that any particular 
 man or combination of men, Avho have un- 
 dertaken the translation of the Scriptures 
 from original tongues, are rej^rehensibly 
 responsible for these errors. Far l^ack in 
 the ages past, some individual, or indi- 
 viduals, have looked over the original in- 
 spiration and read it or translated it, 
 
144 THE STUPENDOUS EEEOE. 
 
 supposing that tliey had at sight compre- 
 hended tlie entire scope of its meaning. 
 The seed of error was in all probability 
 planted here, and as sincere men are more 
 prone to copy what they supjDose to be 
 inspiration than confute it, the first error, 
 which cannot be traced, has grown by oft 
 repetitions and teachings into established 
 fact. 
 
 This lapse of time has been covered by 
 no less than thirty thousand versions or 
 readings of the Scriptures, and the most 
 natural inquiry is, how is it possible that 
 these errors have escaped the observation 
 of such a long line of learning ? The man 
 ^vllo could answer this inquiry would be 
 fully competent to write the insj^ii'ation. 
 
 The answer may be measurably made in 
 this wise : If the present Hebrew be 
 acknowledged as the true copy of the 
 inspiration, then the errors j)ointed out are 
 errors. But if the Hebrew be wrong, then 
 
THE STUPENDOUS ERROR. 145 
 
 tlie translation may or may not be right. 
 We have never seen any attack or ques- 
 tioning of the Hebrew text on this subject, 
 and hence have assumed it as a conceded 
 truth. We have spoken of the translators 
 of the King James Bible, and it might 
 be assumed that we regarded them as re- 
 sponsible. To a certain extent they are, 
 but their instructions were to follow 
 mainty the Bishop's Bible then in use (as 
 will be seen hereafter), and from the direc- 
 tions given and the shajDe the whole trans- 
 action took, the object to be attained was 
 not so much to procure a correct transla- 
 tion from the original tongues from the 
 foundation, as to appease public clamor 
 against the discovered errors of the Bishop's 
 Bible. 
 
 The early idea inculcated that Adam and 
 Eve were the first and only human beings 
 made, was a natural result from the Gen- 
 esis beino; the commencement of- the 
 
146 THE STUPENDOUS EREOE. 
 
 Mstoiy -of the Hebrews, and tlie Old Testa- 
 ment almost exclusively treats of tliem. 
 This idea, having been assumed without 
 critical care, gradually became stereotyped 
 upon the minds of Biblical scholars, and 
 assumed by them as much a Scriptural 
 fact as though it had been stated in terms. 
 Hence, all translators and Biblical students 
 became in a measure incapacitated to ex- 
 amine normally the Hebrew record on this 
 subject, and therefore we say that no 
 reprehensible responsibility should rest 
 upon any of them for these errors. 
 
ELIMINATIONS AND SUBSTITU- 
 TIONS. 
 
 We give below the eliminations from the 
 Hebrew, and the substitutions in English 
 in the first eleven chapters of Genesis of all 
 names and terms essential to a correct un- 
 derstanding of the introduction of mankind 
 in the creation, and also as a:ffecting Ada^i 
 placed in the Garden of Eden, continued 
 till after the flood. It must not be as- 
 sumed by the reader that the whole of 
 the King James translation of the Bible 
 abounds in like eliminations and substitu- 
 tions; for, on the contrary, as far as we 
 know — not having examined other j)or- 
 tions critically — we hope the meanings are 
 substantially retained. This subject seems 
 to have been misappi'ehended, or at least 
 has been mistransciibed from the Hebrew. 
 
148 ELIMIIS-ATIONS AND 
 
 SUBSTITUTIONS. 
 
 ! 
 
 Hebrew terms eliminated. 
 
 Substitutions. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 i. 26. 
 
 Adam 
 
 Man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 i. 27. 
 
 Ha- A dam. 
 
 Man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 i. 27. 
 
 Yay (And). 
 
 So. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 5. 
 
 Adam 
 
 Man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 7. 
 
 Ha- Adam . 
 
 Man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 7. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 8. 
 
 Ha- Adam . 
 
 The man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 15. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 The man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 16. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 The man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 18. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 The man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 19. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Adam. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 19. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Adam. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 20. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Adam. 
 
 
 : Gen. 
 
 ii. 21. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Adam. 
 
 
 • Gen. 
 
 ii. 22. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 22. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 The man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 23. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Adam. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ii. 25. 
 
 Ha-Adam. . 
 
 The man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 iii. 8. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Adam. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 iii. 9. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Adam. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 iii. 12. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 The man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 iii. 20. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Adam. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 iii. 22. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 The man. 
 
 
 i Gen. 
 
 iii. 24. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Tlie man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 iv. 1. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Adam. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 V. 1. 
 
 Adam 
 
 Man. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 vi. 1. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Men. 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 vi. 2. 
 
 Ha-Adam . 
 
 Men. 
 
 
ELIMINATIONS AND SUBSllTUTIONS. 140 
 
 Hebrew terms eliminated. Substitutions. 
 
 Geu. vi. 3. Adam Man. 
 
 Gen. vi. 4. Ila-Adam Men. 
 
 Gen. vi. 5. iHa-Adam Man. 
 
 Gen. vi. 6. Ha-Adam Man. 
 
 Gen. vi. 7. Ha-Adam Man. 
 
 Gen. vi. 7. Adam Man. 
 
 Gen. vii. 21. lla-Adam Man. 
 
 Gen. vii. 23. Adam Man. 
 
 Gen. viii. 21. Ha-Adam Man's. 
 
 Gen. viii. 21. Ha-Adam Man's. 
 
 Gen. ix. 5. Ha-Adam Man. 
 
 Gen. ix. 5. Ha-Adam Man. 
 
 Gen. ix. 6. Ha-Adam Man's. 
 
 Gen. ix. 6. Adam Man. 
 
 Gen. ix. 6. Ha-Adam Man. 
 
 Gen. xi. 5. Ha-Adam Men. 
 
 Where Adam occurs in the Hebrew 
 text, it refers to the individual Ha-Adam, 
 except in Gen. i. 26 and Gen. v. 2, where 
 it means by special definition, as we have 
 shown before, male an,d female man. Ha- 
 Adam in the above is apparently some- 
 times used to denote the generations of 
 Adam and Eve. 
 
CONCLUSION AND VERIFICATION. 
 
 Ojn" a subject so important as the one 
 under discussion, and tlie variety of opin- 
 ion entertained about it, it would be pre- 
 sumptuous to assume that individual effort 
 at elucidation might produce much more 
 than a ripple upon the vast ocean of idea 
 that has been expended upon it. Ex- 
 panded as this ocean is, and deep as has 
 been and are its currents, it would seem of 
 the gravest importance that some chart 
 should be settled upon by the Christian 
 world to aid the confused believer in its 
 navigation. There are millions floating 
 along in these currents, each supported in 
 his belief, because others believe as he 
 does, who never- turned a thought towards 
 the source of that belief, or ever took the 
 trouble to investigate its foundation. 
 
CONCLUSIOlSr AND VERIFICATION. 151 
 
 Education to an idea, and a pantomime 
 repetition of it, is the extent of their 
 knowledge, and they rest content, believing 
 they are brilliantly educated in the stupen- 
 dous conceptions, designs, and laws of the 
 living God, by such tangent touchings to 
 the word. 
 
 You may exhume from the bowels of 
 Biblical truth the most brilliant diamond, 
 and ask them to examine it, and if it 
 shadows against their j)reconceived opin- 
 ions, they will glance at it, and exclaim, 
 " Deception ! " The more ignorant they 
 are, the quicker will be their conclusions, 
 and the more determined their opposition. 
 There are others who will listen, but with 
 a strong determination not to accept any- 
 thing but such as they believe. These will 
 say, "Well, suppose the construction of 
 the Genesis has been ^vi'ong or not clearly 
 made out, why disturb it ? I find enough 
 in the Bible to satisfy me, and many have 
 
152" COIS'CLUSIOIN' AND VEEIFICATION". 
 
 lived and died in this belief." Rusty, 
 sluggish, and indolent Cliristians ! For 
 what end has the Bible been given to 
 man ? To teach error, or to teach truth ; to 
 believe as error, or to believe as truth? 
 From neither of these two classes of believ- 
 ers, either as believers or as Biblical schol- 
 ars, will these pages be of any service, even 
 though they were clothed all over with the 
 pure word of God. 
 
 There is, however, a very large class of 
 intellectual and intelligent Christians who 
 read the word, not in pantomime, but with 
 the power of intellect which God has be- 
 stowed upon them. They investigate, they 
 probe, not being satisfied with the dead- 
 lock of the acts of God recorded in a lan- 
 guage in which inspiration did not write 
 with His acts in Nature. They delve still 
 deeper, and see if these acts have been 
 rightly transcribed into the new language. 
 They balance and compare, they seek for 
 
CONCLUSION AND VEKU^ICATION. 153 
 
 definitions of terms, and keep on delving, 
 working, and unfokling, believing always 
 that the All-mse God would never give to 
 man a work for kis study that he could 
 not comprehend the statements which are 
 given therein for his comprehension. 
 
 If this work should then develop one 
 grain of truth, it would ensure a candid 
 reading and ready reception by this class 
 of inquiring Christians. They have been 
 ever vigilant to grasp whatever is truth, 
 and endeavor to conciliate apparent con- 
 tradictions. Their aim always being to 
 prove God's word to be in accordance with, 
 and a parallelism to, His acts. That ^vhile 
 all acknowledsre those acts to have been 
 unchan2:iuo: for all time constitutinsr His 
 laws, these laws in Nature are as binding 
 as the written laws in His word. He then 
 will find the jewel of great price, who will 
 discover the harmony betw^een His acts in 
 Natui'e, and the Divine written word. 
 
154 COl^^CLUSIOlS- AND VEEinCATIO]^. 
 
 He will uneartli a great Biblical truth wlio 
 will show Divine authority written in the 
 Bible, that two steps in a line of reproduc- 
 tion are two jDoints in an unvarying line 
 backward to the day of creation. 
 
 The first and greatest difficulty to the 
 general reader in the endeavor to compre- 
 hend the statements herein contained, to 
 show this and other points upon which it 
 dej)ends, is a want of knowledge of the 
 Hebrew. Some may possess this knowl- 
 edge, while a vast majority have no con- 
 ception of it, and possibly some may not 
 even be aware of the fact that the original 
 inspiration of the Genesis was written first 
 in that language. They may say, and with 
 great force, " How do I know that the state- 
 ments of this man are true, when the Bible 
 has been translated by eminent Hebrew 
 scholars, and that translation has received 
 the silent acquiescence of so many able 
 divines and men skilled in that lano-ua^re 
 
CONCLUSION AND VERIFICATION. 155 
 
 for siicli a lenorth of time ? The wei^flit of 
 evidence is against him, and lie does not 
 present a single certification that his state- 
 ments are true or his translations are cor- 
 rect." 
 
 True : nor does he intend to do so, and 
 the reason will be readily understood. For, 
 instead of endeavorino^ to make others think 
 as he does, or read as he does, he is giving 
 to those who are willins: to look at what he 
 has found in the Genesis, after more years 
 of investigation than any one man probably 
 has spent upon it, that they may be able 
 to concentrate their labors upon the vital 
 points necessary to a solution of the prob- 
 lem so long acknowledged as unsolved. 
 The reader, however, is referred to page 30 
 of Introduction. 
 
 Nor does the verification extend to the 
 general translation. We assume all that as 
 correct, leaving it to others to show wherein 
 it is wrong if it be so. The whole matter 
 
156 COIS-CLTJSTON AND VERIFICATION-. 
 
 we have to do with is contained in the mis- 
 use in the translation of ttvo names and 
 one loord. The substitution of other words 
 for them and their eliminations have caused 
 the whole difficulty. 
 
 We can show to the reader who never 
 saw the Hebrew how he can verify the two 
 names we speak of within the English 
 Bible, and he will only be left to find out 
 whether this one other word is rightly 
 transposed from the Hebrew ; and we think 
 we can almost conclusively show that it is 
 not, from the translation. The two names 
 are Adam male and female m.an^ and Ha- 
 Adam or The Adam, the individual placed 
 in the Garden of Eden, and the one Hebrew 
 word meaning And, stricken out at the 
 beginning of Genesis i. 27, and the substi- 
 tution of the word So in its stead. 
 
 The reader will naturally exclaim, '' Is 
 this all, and is it possible that so insignifi- 
 cant a mistranscribing should make any 
 
CONCLUSIOIS- AND VERIFICATION. 157 
 
 essential difference in meaning ? " We 
 answer, Yes, this is all. For by the leaving 
 out the name Adam male and female man, 
 in the day of creation, and the name Ha- 
 Adam in various places in the Genesis, and 
 the substitution of So for And, the follow- 
 ing results must necessarily be the con- 
 struction placed u]3on the translation : 
 
 If'irst. That a principal act of God in 
 creation, that of making Ada3I male and 
 female man^ is eliminated and stricken out. 
 
 Second. The creative name of The Ada:m 
 the individual is in like manner eliminated. 
 
 Third. By the use of the word So for 
 And, the making of the class Adam in 
 Genesis i. 26 is declared to l)e the same act 
 of God as the creatino; of Ha-Ada3I the in- 
 dividual in Genesis i. 27. 
 
 Foiirtli. By eliminating the name Ha- 
 Adam in other portions of the Genesis, and 
 substituting men and Tuan^ the flood is made 
 universal ; that is, made to destroy all men^ 
 
158 COTTCLUSION AND VEEIFICATIOJS-. 
 
 instead of destroying the generations of Ha- 
 Adam or The Adam. 
 
 The natural inquiry of any ordinary 
 reader of history, either sacred or profane, 
 should and would be, if the idea occurred to 
 him, " Why have the translators translated 
 a proper name at all, and as they have 
 done so; sometimes rendering Ha- Ad am, 
 Adam, sometimes "tnan^ sometimes the man^ 
 and sometimes men? If the original 
 Hebrew name was to be abandoned in the 
 English, why not have used the same term 
 for the same name where it occurred "i " 
 If the reader asks the question, he must 
 satisfy himself with an answer; we only 
 state the facts of the case. 
 
 VERinCATIOI^ FROM THE E^-aLISH TRAI^SLA- 
 TIOIT. 
 
 This verification is important to the 
 reader, who has no means of judging of the 
 accuracy of the translation from the Hebrew 
 
CONCLUSIO:^ A]SrD VERIFICATION. 150 
 
 to the English. We think we can prove 
 what the Hebrew should be in the instances 
 under consideration, from so much of the 
 Genesis as has been transcribed correctly. 
 Then as to the name Adam male and female 
 man. 
 
 Gen. .V. 2. Male and female created He them ; and 
 blessed them, and called their name AD^\3r, in the 
 day when they were created. 
 
 This is the translation, and, so far as we 
 can see, it is a correct transcription from 
 the Hebrew; the name Adam occurring 
 there as it does here. The only part of 
 Gen. i. relating to the making and creating 
 of mankind, is the following in the trans- 
 lation : 
 
 Gen. i. 26. And God said, Let us make man in our 
 image, after our likeness: and let them have do- 
 minion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl 
 of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the 
 earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth 
 upon the earth. 
 
 Gen. i. 27. Sn God created man in His own image, in 
 the image of God created He him ; male and female 
 created He them. 
 
160 COI^CLUSIOJS' AND YEEIFIOATIOlSr. 
 
 We then see that Adam, being a name as 
 stated in Gen. v. 2, and that its definition 
 is male and female man, has no place in 
 either of these two verses, being the day 
 when they were created. Then, knowing 
 the fact by Divine authority that it should 
 be there, where will you place it without 
 reference to the Hebrew ? You could not 
 place it in the Genesis i. 27, where rnmi 
 occurs, because that is a single man, as the 
 translation asserts. " So God created man 
 in His own image, in the image of God 
 created He him : " Adam being defined as 
 male and female, and this term 7na7i is a 
 single male governed by hi7n. Nor can it 
 be taken as the male and female in the 
 same verse, because they stand for persons 
 not named. But suppose we do assume 
 that this male and female represent Adam, 
 how are we to account still for this name 
 in the day of creation, and what signifi- 
 cance are we to give to man in the Genesis 
 
COITCLUSION AND VERIFICATIOI^. iGl 
 
 i. 26 ? Man there means a class, for tliey 
 were to liave clominioa, etc. " And let 
 them have dominion over the fish of the 
 sea," etc. 
 
 Then, if man in Gen. i. 27 was the same 
 as man in Gen. i. 26, then Tie was to have 
 dominion, etc., and the true statement, 
 "And let tlietn have dominion," etc., is a 
 plain contradiction. The reader can see, 
 then, that he cannot j)lace the name Ada^i, 
 male and female, for man, in the Genesis i. 
 27, nor for male and female in the same 
 verse, because these are placed there with- 
 out names. The only place left is man in 
 Gen. i. 26, and there is just where Adam 
 occurs in the original Hebrew text. Our 
 assertion of the fact is therefore corrobo- 
 lated without a knowledge of the Hebrew^ 
 and any one possessing that knowledge 
 can easily deny our statement if it is not 
 so. 
 
 ISTow, in respect to the individual created 
 
1G2 CONCLUSIOIf AND VEEiriCATIOTT, 
 
 as 7nan in Gen. i. 27. Tlie question witli 
 tlie reader is, to inquire whetlier one man 
 was created by this account, and if so, had 
 lie a name or designation in the Hebrew. 
 It is correctly stated in many places in the 
 Genesis, that it was an individual, and that 
 his name was The Adam. Then, the 
 reader might ask, why was not that name 
 used in the translation as well as in the 
 Hebrew, to denote the fact? We say it 
 was so used in the Hebrew, and is there 
 put down as Ha- Adam — Ha being the in 
 the English language — so that Ha- Adam 
 was the Hebrew name which in English is 
 The Adam. The necessity of the insertion 
 of the Hebrew term, when it occurs in the 
 Hebrew, to denote this individual, must be 
 done and repeated in the translation to 
 give an accurate conception of the subject. 
 The reader will see, without references l^y 
 us or quotations, that where his individual- 
 ity occurs in the translation, he is more 
 
CONCLUSION AND VERIFICATIOX. IG^ 
 
 frequently called the mem, mem, and m<?;^, 
 than Adam, and 7iever once in the trans- 
 lated Genesis, The Adam. 
 
 A normal reader would therefore con- 
 clude that there was something very singu- 
 lar in the fact that this name Adam, or The 
 Ada3I, was not persistently used to desig- 
 nate the individual, and he would undoubt- 
 edly claim the right to insert in his own 
 reading of Genesis, either of these names, 
 uniformly, for the purpose of understand- 
 ing it, without any reference to Hebre^v 
 names left out in the translation, and other 
 terms substituted. For these reasons, the 
 conclusion is inevitable that some uniform 
 term or name should be used for the indi- 
 vidual placed in the Garden of Eden, and 
 that name should be The Adam, or Adam. 
 The elimination of these Hebrew terms, 
 and the substitution of others, will be 
 clearly set forth in the eleven chapters of 
 Genesis in the back of this work, and if 
 
164 CONCLUSION AND VEEIFICATION. 
 
 tliey are not correct, any errors can be 
 easily pointed out. 
 
 The striking out of And^ and substituting 
 So^ cannot be made as clear to tlie reader 
 as we would wisli, without a reference to 
 the Hebrew. Still, we think, as applied to 
 the translation, after the name Adam shall 
 be placed where Grod j^nt it, and Ha- Adam, 
 or The Ada]m, not denied its place, the two 
 verses would assuuie such a form that the 
 word So would be inapjDlicable, and give 
 no sense as an English word. We quote 
 them with the names restored, retaining the 
 word So, 
 
 Gen. i. 26. And God said, Let us make Adam male and 
 female man in our image, after our likeness : and 
 let tliem have dominion over the fish of the sea, and 
 over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and 
 over all the earth, and over every creeping thing 
 that creepeth upon the earth. 
 
 Gen. i. 27. So God created Ha- Adam, or The Adam, in 
 His own image, in the image of God created He 
 him ; male and female created He them. 
 
 As a rhetorical question, any one can de- 
 
CON^CLUSlUN AND VEEIFICATIOIS^. 1G5 
 
 cide it as well as, and probably better than, 
 the author. But as a Biblical question, ifc 
 is easily decided. By the elimination of the 
 word AND and the substitution of the ^vord 
 so, in Genesis i. 27, whoever has done it sub- 
 stantially has said to Moses, " You did not 
 know Avhat you were writing about, and did 
 not understand your subject. You should 
 not have used the word and in that place, 
 but should have used the word so, because 
 we know God did not mean anything by 
 the Genesis i. 26, except as a declaration of 
 intention of what He did do in Genesis i. 
 27. AVe sliall therefore take out yoar 
 word AND and put in our word so." 
 
 And so, too, the constructionists of the 
 unity of the race say of Moses substan- 
 tially the same thing, when they read 
 God's law of reproduction — " Let the earth 
 bring forth the living creature after Ms 
 hindr ^' Now, Moses wrote this, of course, 
 but he did not mean what he says, because 
 
lG(j •CONCLUSIO:^" Am> VEEIFICATION. 
 
 we have always considered the living 
 creature as appl}nng to the brute creation, 
 the fishes, the fowls, and the creeping 
 things. Those we see and know are repro- 
 duced in kind as he says, and in accord- 
 ance with the law. But we have always 
 read, and so believe, that Adam and Eve 
 were the only man and woman made on 
 the day of creation, and if this law of 
 reproduction be made aj)plicable to the 
 human race, then all men and women now 
 on the earth would be of one kind. No, 
 Moses never meant that law should apply 
 to the human race." 
 
 So we might expect, from what we have 
 seen, that the translators would have put 
 in the following, if they had not finished 
 the subject by what they have done: '^Let 
 the earth bring forth the living creature, 
 except man^ after his kind ; " for no one 
 would probably go so far as to declare, 
 except he be an enthusiast, that man is not 
 
■ CONCLUSION AND VERIFICATION. 1G7 
 
 a livino; creature of God. These illustra- 
 tions show the necessity of setting aside 
 individual opinions upon the reading and 
 construction of plain passages of Scripture. 
 AYhen ^^e find a positive statement, like 
 the law of reproduction, give it full force, 
 without it is positively confined within 
 limits by another statement. 
 
 . The reader can easily verify the law of 
 marriao:e of near akin laid down in 
 Leviticus xviii., and can decide for himself 
 whether the statutes and judgments of God 
 were from the beginning, or whether they 
 have been made to fit cases as they occur. 
 'With these explanations he will be enabled 
 to gain a reasonably clear concej)tion of 
 the subject. But if he should fail still in 
 his confidence in the Hebrew eliminations 
 and English substitutions, and take suffi- 
 cient interest in the subject, he can apply 
 to any Hebrew scholar to verify the state- 
 mcDts herein contained. 
 
168 CONCLUSION AND VEKDICATION. 
 
 SUMMAEY. 
 
 Having gone through witli this subject, 
 and handled it in such a way, we hope, as 
 to place men on their guard not to inter- 
 polate, not to eliminate, not to substitute, 
 and not to place their individual opinions 
 against the recorded word of God, we are 
 now prej)ared to sum up the evidences 
 which we have gleaned from the record. 
 And we are willing to acknowledge, being 
 so fearful of individual bias and the opera- 
 tion of individual opinion where the word 
 of God is concerned, that we almost shrink 
 from the responsibility. But truth is 
 potent. And if the things stated here be 
 the truth, our responsibility will end with 
 the declaration of it, while that of others 
 will begin, who have held the contrary, 
 and see these facts. We then determine 
 the following as we read the record : 
 
 ^i?'st. That there was a creation by the 
 
CONCLUSION AND VEKIFICATION. IGO 
 
 fiat of God in six grand divisions. Each 
 division was made or created in time 
 called days, and tliese days were sub- 
 divided into periods called light, darkness, 
 evening, and morning. 
 
 Second. That these creations were to 
 accomplish certain great and glorious ends. 
 Parts were to remain as created or made, 
 and other portions were to continue by 
 changes. 
 
 Third. Mankind were made or created 
 to continue by changes. 
 
 Fourth. Continuance by changes in the 
 human species, requii-ed and received a law 
 regulating these changes from step to step. 
 This is the law of reproduction after his 
 hind. 
 
 Fifth. The operation of these laws must 
 be judged and determined by observation, 
 in like manner with all other natural 
 laws. 
 
 Sixth. That observation shows that dif- 
 
170 COIN-CLUSIOIS" AND VERIFICATION. 
 
 ferent kinds of men and women are pro- 
 duced on tlie earth. We must assume, 
 even without revelation, that this is a 
 Divine law, and it must not be claimed as 
 having changed, unless we have positive 
 proof. It becomes a still more binding 
 law when we find it laid down in the in- 
 spired record. 
 
 SeventJi. We have shown two classes of 
 male and female as created or made in the 
 day of creation : Adam male and female, 
 and The Adam, and. also male and female. 
 
 Eiglitli. The former class has been ig- 
 nored .and eliminated from our Bible, 
 which shows but one act of God in the 
 creation of mankind, when it should record 
 two. 
 
 Ninth. We have not yet received in 
 our English Bible the pure word of God 
 on this subject, as found in the Hebrew, 
 from these and other causes of elimination 
 to which we have referred. 
 
GOXCLUSION AND VERIFICATION. 171 
 
 Tenth. These continued errors have 
 bound our Bible to tbe declaration of the 
 unity of tlie race in Ada:\i and Eve. 
 
 .Eleventh. The flood only destroyed their 
 descendants, and did not destroy all flesh 
 or evei^y man^ from the normal reading of 
 the account. 
 
 Twelfth. That the Bible nowhere states 
 in terms that the human family have de- 
 scended from one man, or one pair, or from 
 a common parent. Hence, it is not Biblical 
 that we have all descended from Adam 
 and Eve, except through the eliminations 
 and substitutions spoken of. 
 
 Thirteenth. By these eliminations and 
 substitutions, the Bible has been warped 
 out of its true meaning, and Christians 
 have been reading these manisms, instead 
 of the pure word of God. 
 
 Fourteenth. We claim as a finality, that 
 the Hebrew names and terms should be 
 restored, and these manisms rooted out. 
 
172 CONCLUSION AND YEEIFICATION 
 
 That every term anS name found in the 
 original record should be cherished and 
 retained in its place, as a jewel of priceless 
 value. When this is done, theologies and 
 constructions will take care of themselves ; 
 but no theology or construction should de- 
 prive the Christian, or any other man, of 
 the pure and unadulterated word of God. 
 
RESULT. 
 
 AD^trrrrN-a that the Christian world is 
 brought to the knowledge of the main pos- 
 tulates, which we think have been j)i'oven, 
 and that they find the eliminations of 
 Adam the class, and The Ada3I the indi- 
 vidual, and of the single word And (which 
 after all governs the whole case), and that 
 for these terms in the original Hebrew 
 other terms have been substituted, which 
 have chano-ed the whole meaninc^ of the 
 Genesis, as regards the introduction of 
 mankind into the creation. What is the 
 result ? 
 
 On the one hand are the various sectari- 
 an denominations, with the learned Divines 
 almost to a unit reading the King James 
 translation of the Bible, and grounding 
 their belief upon these substitutions. On 
 the other hand is an equally large num1)er 
 
174 EESULT. 
 
 who, thougli they believe in the Bible gen- 
 erally, and are well grounded in the Chris- 
 tian faith, do not believe the construction 
 placed upon it, that all kinds of men and 
 women have descended from Adam and 
 Eve, this not being one of the fundamental 
 articles of the Christian faith. 
 
 So intimately is this construction con- 
 nected with the Bible, and so bold and 
 pointed are the declarations of its advo- 
 cates that this is what the Bible calls for, 
 that a charo-e of disbelief in this construe- 
 tion is received as a charge of disbelief in 
 the Bible. This leads to acrimonious feel- 
 ing, and acts incidentally and strongly on 
 a belief in the Bible truths in other re- 
 spects, and is a serious impediment to the 
 universal reception of the Christian faith. 
 This has been progressing for years, till 
 the Genesis has become a gladiators' ring, 
 and the whole world is looking on to see 
 the result. Meantime, others, seeing the 
 
RESULT. 175 
 
 extent of tliis contest, and the persistency 
 with which each party holds to its belief, 
 are entering to dispute other portions of 
 the sacred word. 
 
 All this has a pernicious and serious ef- 
 fect upon Christianity itself. Time and 
 effort which should be devoted to the ex- 
 tension of the Christian faith, are lost in the 
 vain effort to extinguish opposition to this 
 construction. The opponents are backed 
 by the acts of God in Nature, and by an 
 admitted principle that He is unchanging 
 in these acts, and their experience confirms 
 them in that position. They see various 
 kinds of men and women differing in physi- 
 cal organization, produced and reproduced, 
 the one never producing the other, and no 
 history, sacred or profane, recording the 
 adverse. They say that the construction- 
 given to Scripture, where nothing to the 
 contrary is stated, should be in exact ac- 
 cordance and in parallelisms with the re- 
 
176 EESULT. 
 
 vealed word and the act& of God in 
 Nature. 
 
 The advocates of the unity of the race, 
 on the other hand, admit the production 
 and reproduction of the various kinds of 
 men and women as now found upon the 
 earth — admit this through all history, but 
 claim that the change took place in the 
 hiatus from the creation to where history 
 became reliable. Reading the Scripture 
 upon the substitutions we have spoken of, 
 this becomes a necessity to protect and 
 make good this supposition. They assert 
 that God changed His law of reproduction 
 somewhere in the generations of Noah, but 
 cannot point to the time or place or fact of 
 such change. This position, when investi- 
 gated, becomes a simple assertion, a man- 
 ism, without one word of proof, either 
 sacred or profane, to sustain it, and should 
 have no weight in deciding a Biblical fact, 
 
RESULT. 177 
 
 nor should it even have weight towards 
 founding belief. 
 
 The subject, then, stripped of this man- 
 ism, leaves it open to be decided upon Bibli- 
 cal ground, and upon that alone should it 
 be decided. In this view of the questi. . 
 they may well ask themselves, why have 
 the eliminations referred to in Genesis been 
 made, and why was it necessary to elimin- 
 ate at all ? Why not have placed the names 
 of the two Adams in the English where they 
 occurred in the Hebrew ? Why not have 
 retained the word Ajs^d instead of substitut- 
 ing the word So. The most important 
 question, however, is. Have we founded our 
 construction upon the pure word of God, 
 or upon these manisms ? 
 
 We believe that no one will be held re- 
 sponsible for this construction made in good 
 faith on the supposed word of God, for we 
 have once believed in that construction. 
 
 Such belief of the unity of the race on this 
 8* 
 
178 RESULT. 
 
 ground is higMy commendable. The re- 
 sponsibility only begins wich tlie discovery 
 of the error. Let iis look at the subject in 
 the light that this construction has been 
 based on error, and that the Genesis, and 
 the Bible as a whole, is relieved of it by a 
 return to the eliminations from the Hebrew 
 record. The constructionists of the unity 
 yield nothing, for they have persistently 
 declared that the Genesis was an unex- 
 plained portion of Scripture. What do they 
 gain if this gives a consistent reading and 
 a clear understanding of what has not been 
 understood? They gain just what they 
 have wanted, and declared they wanted in 
 their proclamation, that Genesis was unex- 
 plained, and the honest portion of the 
 world would say to them, " You have done 
 the best you could to support the supposed 
 word of God." 
 
 What would their opponents gain ? Just 
 nothing. For they get what they have be- 
 
RESULT. 179 
 
 lieved, and what loy tlieir own efforts tliey 
 have endeavored to show, but which they 
 have not shown to conquer, by any argu- 
 ments or proofs which they have educed. 
 The contest, therefore, over the unity of 
 the race must be regarded as an undecided 
 battle between the contestants, neither side 
 having brought forth proofs or arguments 
 that vanquished the other. Each has been 
 contending, as we believe, with false* weap- 
 ons, while the "smooth stone oat of the 
 brook " has remained unnoticed, unheeded, 
 and im tried.. 
 
 If this readino; and construction be re- 
 ceived by the Christian world, we may well 
 say that a millennium has come. The eyes 
 of all will be turned to the Bible as a book 
 of inspiration agreeing with the acts of 
 God in Nature, and by agreement in this 
 respect reflect favorably upon the whole. 
 Dissensions will cease, sects will no lono-er 
 be divided, the jDroblem of Genesis will be 
 
180 KESULT. 
 
 declared solved, and tlie great stumbling- 
 block to belief at the very threshold of 
 creation and Divine truth be removed. 
 
 How, then, will this reading be received ? 
 Will Christians still go on and claim the 
 King James translation infallible ? Will 
 they still continue to read and teach man- 
 isms instead of the pure word of God? 
 Will they consent to the eliminations and 
 substitutions we have pointed out as being 
 the photograph of Divine inspiration ? 
 Will the combatants ov^er the sacred 
 word be willing to lay off their armor, and 
 agree upon the pure word of God from the 
 Hebrew ? God only knows, and time 
 alone can reveal the result. 
 
ELIMINATIONS EESTORED. 
 
 As we have said before, tlie eliminations 
 of Hebrew names and words extend only 
 to the follomng, which is as far as our 
 subject goes : 
 
 Adam male and female man. 
 
 Ha- Adam, or The Adam, the individual. 
 
 Vay, meaning Aisid. 
 
 We give hereafter the first two and also 
 parts of the remaining eleven chapters of 
 Genesis wherein these names and this word 
 And are restored to their places, and have 
 taken out the substitutions which have been 
 placed there in their stead. We shall give 
 at the same time, in notes to each verse, 
 the rendering of these terms by the trans- 
 lators, so that the reader can make the 
 ready comparison without referring to the 
 Bible. Every one will admit that the 
 
182 ELIM NATIONS RESTOEED. 
 
 name of an individual is not a subject of 
 translation; and liere was one of the 
 grounds whicli has led to the stupendous 
 error. 
 
 Adam, male and female, is left out but 
 once, while The Adaih has never been al- 
 lowed a place in the Bible at all, although 
 this name occurs in the first eleven chapters 
 no less than thirty-six times. In the 
 face of this fact, our Bible has been pre- 
 sented to us as the correct transcription of 
 the word of God. The name Ha-Adam, 
 translated The Adam, by which he was 
 created, has been denied a place in God's 
 record of the transaction, or even in the 
 Bible ! He has been called man, the man, 
 men, men's, and Adam, but never once The 
 Adam. To say the least, this is a very, 
 singular circumstance. Any reader would 
 naturally ask why this was done ? It mat- 
 ters not .if injustice in this respect has been 
 iuiiicted upon him, it is not too late now 
 
ELIMINATIONS PwESTORED. 183 
 
 to make amends. We shall place Lis name 
 as The xIdam just where it occurs in the 
 HebrcvV, but we shall not change his name 
 when it also occui^s in the Hebrew as Adam. 
 
GENESIS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 1. In beginning God created the heaven and 
 the earth. 
 
 2. And the earth was without form, and void ; 
 and darkness was upon the face of the deep. 
 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of 
 the waters. 
 
 3. And God said, Let there be light : and 
 there was light. 
 
 4. And God saw the light, that it was good : 
 and God divided the light from the darkness. 
 
 5. And God called the light Day, and the 
 darkness he called Night. And the evening and 
 the morning were the first day. 
 
 6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in 
 the midst of the waters, and let it divide the 
 waters from the waters. 
 
 7. And God made the firmament, and divided 
 the waters which were under the firmament from 
 the waters which were above the firmament : and 
 it was so. 
 
 8. And God called the firmament Heaven. 
 
GENESIS. 155 
 
 And the evening and the morning were the sec- 
 ond day. 
 
 9. And God said, Let the waters under the 
 heaven be gathered together unto one place, and 
 let the dr}^ layid appear : and it was so. 
 
 10. And God called the dry land Earth ; and 
 the gathering together of the waters called he 
 Seas : and God saw that it was good. 
 
 11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth 
 grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree 
 yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in 
 itself, upon the earth : and it was so. 
 
 12. And the earth brought forth grass, and 
 herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree 
 yielding fruit, whose seed ivas in itself, after 
 his kind : and God saw that it teas good. 
 
 13. And the evening and the morning were 
 the third day. 
 
 14. And God said. Let there be lights in the 
 firmament of the heaven to divide the day from 
 the night ; and let them be for signs, and for sea- 
 sons, and for days, and years : 
 
 15. And let them be for lights in the firma- 
 ment of the heaven to give light upon the earth : 
 and it was so. 
 
 16. And God made two great lights; the 
 greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light 
 to rule the nio^ht : he made the stars also. 
 
186 GENESIS. 
 
 17. And God set tliem in tlie firmament of 
 heaven to give light upon the earth. 
 
 18. And to rule over the day and over the 
 night, and to divide the light from the darkness : 
 and God saw that it was good. 
 
 19. And the evening and the morning were 
 the fourth day. 
 
 20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth 
 abundantly the moving creature that hath life, 
 and fowl that may fly above the earth in the 
 open firmament of heaven. 
 
 21. And God created great whales, and every 
 living creature that moveth, which the waters 
 brought forth abundantly, after theie kind, and 
 every winged fowl after his kind : and God saw 
 that it was good. 
 
 22. And God blessed them, saying. Be fruitful, 
 and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and 
 let fowl multiply in the earth, 
 
 23. And the evening and the morning were the 
 fifth day. 
 
 24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth 
 THE living creature AFTER HIS KIND, cattlc, and 
 creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his 
 KIND : and it was so. . ' 
 
 25. And God made the beast of the earth af- 
 ter HIS KIND, and cattle after their kind, and 
 
GENESIS. 187 
 
 every thing that creepeth upon the earth aftkp. 
 HIS KIND : and God saw that it was good. 
 
 26. And God said, Let us make ADAM "'^ 
 
 {Male and female, man, Gen. v. 2), in our image, 
 
 after our likeness ; and let them have dominion 
 
 over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the 
 
 air, and over the cattle, and over all tlie earth, 
 
 and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon 
 
 the earth. 
 
 * By translators, man. 
 
 27. AxD* God created The Adam f in his own 
 image, in the image of God created he him ; 
 male and female created he them. 
 
 * By translators, So. f By translators, man. 
 
 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto 
 them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the 
 earth, and subdue it : and have dominion over 
 the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, 
 and over every living thing that moveth upon the 
 earth. 
 
 29. And God said, Behold, I have given you 
 every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face 
 of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is 
 the fruit of a tree yielding seed ; to you it shall 
 be for meat. 
 
 30. And to every beast of the earth, and to 
 every fowl of the air, and to every thing that 
 creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, / 
 
188 GEl^ESIS. 
 
 have given every green herb for meat ; and it 
 was so. 
 
 31. And God saw every thing that he had 
 made, and, behold, it was very good. And the 
 evening and the morning were the sixth day. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 1. Thus the heaven * and the earth were finish- 
 ed, and all the host of them. 
 
 * By translators, heaveiis. 
 
 2. And on the seventh day God ended his 
 work which he had made ; and he rested on the 
 seventh day from all his work which he had 
 made. 
 
 3. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanc- 
 tified it : because that in it he had rested from all 
 his work which God created and made. 
 
 4. These are the generations of the heaven "^ 
 and of the earth when they were created, in the 
 day that the Lord God made. the earth and the 
 heaven.* 
 
 * By translators, heavens. 
 
 5. 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 cansed it to 
 rain upon .the earth, and Adam"^ was not, to till 
 the ground. 
 
 * By translators, there was not a man. 
 
GEKESIS. 189 
 
 6. But there went np a mist from the earth, 
 and watered the whole face of the ground. 
 
 7. And the Lord God formed The Adam * of 
 the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nos- 
 trils the breath of life ; and The Adam * became 
 
 a living soul. 
 
 * By translators, man. 
 
 8. And the Lokd God planted a garden east- 
 ward in Eden; and there he put The Adam"^ 
 whom he had formed. 
 
 * By translators, the man. 
 
 9. And out of the ground made the Lord God 
 to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, 
 and good for food ; the tree of life also in the 
 midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge 
 of good and evil. 
 
 10. And a river went out of Eden to water the 
 garden ; and from thence it was parted, and be- 
 came into four heads. 
 
 11. The name of the first is Pi son : that is it 
 which compasseth the whole land of Ilavilah, 
 where there is gold ; 
 
 12. And the gold of that land is good : there 
 is bdellium and the onyx stone. 
 
 13. And the name of the second river is 
 Gihon : the same is it that compasseth the whole 
 land of Ethiopia. 
 
 14. And the name of the third river is Hidde- 
 
190 GENESIS. 
 
 kel : that is it which goeth towards the east 
 of Assyria^ And the fourth river is Euphra- 
 tes. 
 
 15. And the Lokd Grod took The Adam," and 
 put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and 
 to keep it. 
 
 * By translators, the man. 
 
 16. And the Lord God commanded The 
 Adam,* saying, Of every tree of the garden 
 thou mayest freely eat: 
 
 * By translators, the man. 
 
 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good 
 and evil, thou shalt not eat of it : for in the day 
 that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 
 
 IS. And the Lokd God said, It is not good 
 that The Adam * should be alone. I will make 
 him a help meet for him. 
 
 * By translators, tJie man. 
 
 10. And out of the ground the Lord God 
 formed every beast of the field, and every fowl 
 of the air ; and brought them unto The Adam * 
 to see what he would call them : and whatsoever 
 The Ada]si''^ called every living creature, that 
 was the name thereof. 
 
 * By translators, Adam. 
 
GE^STESIS. 1 91 
 
 20. And The Adam - gave names to all cattle, 
 and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of 
 the field ; and to f Adam :{: there was not found 
 a help meet for him. 
 
 * By translators, Adam. f By translators, 'but for. 
 
 X The same in Hebrew and English. 
 
 21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to 
 
 fall upon The Adam,^" and he slept : and he took 
 
 one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead 
 
 thereof. 
 
 * By translators, Adam. 
 
 22. And the rib, which the Loed God had 
 [ taken from The Adam," made he a w^oman, and 
 
 brought her unto The Adam.-j- 
 
 * By translators, ?n«;?. f By translators, ?7;e maTi. 
 
 23. And TnE AdxVzm "^ said, This is now bone of 
 my bones, and flesh of my flesh : she shall be 
 called Woman, because she was taken out of 
 man (IIebrew-?'^A). 
 
 I * By translators, Adam.. 
 
 ' 24. Therefore shall a man (Uebrew-isA) leave 
 
 his father and his mother, ajid shall cleave unto 
 his wife : and they shall be one flesh. 
 
 25. And "they were both naked. The Adam * 
 
 I and his wife, and were not ashamed. 
 
 r 
 
 * By translators, the man. 
 
192 
 
 GEITESIS. 
 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 •3f 
 
 * « * 4f * * 4f 
 
 8. 
 
 And they heard the voice of the Loed God 
 
 walking in the garden in the cool of the day: 
 
 and 
 
 The Adam'-^ and his w^ife hid themselves 
 
 from 
 
 the presence of the Lord God amongst the 
 
 trees 
 
 of the garden. 
 
 
 * By translators, Adam. 
 
 9. 
 
 And the Lord God called unto The Adam,* 
 
 and said unto him, Where art thou ? 
 
 
 * By translators, Adam. 
 
 •?{• 
 
 * 4f * -Sf * * * 
 
 12 
 
 And The Adam * said, The woman whom 
 
 thou 
 
 gavest to he with me, she gave me of the 
 
 tree, 
 
 and I did eat. 
 
 
 * By translators, tlie man. 
 
 •5f 
 
 ******* 
 
 17. 
 
 And unto Adam* he said, Because thou 
 
 hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and 
 
 hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded 
 
 thee. 
 
 saying. Thou shalt not eat of it : cursed is . 
 
 the ground for thy sake ; in sorrow shalt thou eat 
 
 ^/it 
 
 all the days of thy life : 
 
 
 * The same in Hebrew and English. 
 
 -x- 
 
 ******* 
 
GEI^ESIS. 193 
 
 20. And The Adam ^ called his wife's name 
 Eve ; because she was the mother of all living. 
 
 * By translators, Adam. 
 
 21. To * Adam f also and to his wife did the 
 Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed 
 them. 
 
 * By translators, urdo. f Same in Hebrew and English. 
 
 22. And the Lord God said, Behold, The 
 Adam * is become as one of us, to know good and 
 evil : and now, lest he put forth his hand, and 
 take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for 
 
 ever : 
 
 * By translators, tJie man. 
 
 4f ** -H- 4f * 4<- ^ 
 
 24. So he drove out The Adam:* and he 
 placed at the east of the garden of Eden cheru- 
 bim, and a flaming sword which turned every 
 way, to keep the way of the tree of life. 
 
 * By translators, the man. 
 
 ■Sf * * -x- «• * -x- 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 1. And The Adam * knew Eve his wife ; and 
 she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have 
 gotten a man (Ilebrew-z^A) from the Lord. 
 
 * By translators, Adam. 
 
194 GENESIS. 
 
 25. And Adam * knew his wife again ; and she 
 bare a son, and called his name Seth : For God, 
 said she^ hath appointed me another seed instead 
 of Abel, whom Cain slew. 
 
 * The same in Hebrew and English. 
 
 CHAPTEE Y. 
 
 1. This is the book of the generations of 
 Adam.* In the day that God created ADAM,t 
 in the likeness of God made he him : 
 
 * The same in Hebrew and English, f By translators, man. 
 
 2. Male and female created he them ; and 
 blessed them, and called their name ADAM,"^ in 
 the day when they were created. 
 
 * The same in Hebrew and English. 
 
 3. And Adam* lived a hundred and thirty 
 years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after 
 his image ; and called his name Seth : 
 
 * The same in Hebrew and English. 
 
 4. And the days of Adam * after he had be- 
 gotten Seth were eight hundred years : and he 
 begat sons and daughters : 
 
 * The same in Hebrew and English. 
 
GENESIS. 195 
 
 5. And all the days that Adam* lived were 
 niue hundred and thirty years : and he died. 
 
 * The same in Hebrew and English. 
 
 CHAPTEE YI. 
 
 1. And it came to pass, when The Ada^i * be- 
 gan to multiply on the face of the earth, and 
 daughters were born unto them, 
 
 * By translators, men. 
 
 2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of 
 The Adam * that they were fair ; and they took 
 them wives of all which they chose. 
 
 * By translators, men. 
 
 3. And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not al- 
 ways strive with Adam,* for that he also is flesh : 
 yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. 
 
 * By translators, ma7i. 
 
 4. There were giants in the earth in those 
 days ; and also after that, when the sons of God 
 came in unto the daughters of The Ada^i,* and 
 they bare children to them, the same became 
 mighty men {llebrew-ish) which were of old, 
 men (Kebrew-ish) of renown. 
 
 * By translators, men. 
 
196 GENESIS. 
 
 5. And God saw that the wickedness of The 
 Adam ^ vms great in the earth, and that every 
 imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only 
 evil continually. 
 
 * By translators, man. 
 
 6. And it repented the Loed that he had made 
 The Adam * on the earth, and it grieved him at 
 
 his heart. 
 
 * By translators, man. 
 
 7. And the Loed said, I will destroy The 
 Adam ^ whom I have created from the face of the 
 earth ; Feom Adajm unto f beast, and the creeping 
 thing, and the fowls of the air ; for it repenteth 
 me that I have made them. 
 
 * By translators, ma?i. f By translators, doth man and. 
 
 CHAPTER YII. 
 
 21. And all flesh died that moved upon the 
 earth, both* of fowl, and of cattle, and of 
 beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth 
 upon the earth, and every The Adam : * 
 
 * By translators, man. 
 
 23. And every living substance was destroyed 
 which was upon the face of the ground, both 
 
GENESIS. 197 
 
 Adam,"^ and cattle, and tlie creeping things, and 
 the fowl of the heaven ; and they were destroyed 
 from the earth : and ISToah only remained alive, 
 and they that were with him in the ark. 
 
 * By translators, man. 
 
 CHAPTER YIIT. 
 
 21. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour ; and 
 the LoED said in his heart, I will not again curse 
 the ground any more for The Ada3i's ^ sake ; for 
 the imagination of The Adam's ^ heart is evil 
 from his youth : neither will I again smite any 
 more every thing living, as I have done. 
 
 * By translators, mart's. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 5. And surely your blood of your lives will I 
 require : at the hand of every beast will I require 
 it, and at the hand of The Adam ; * at the hand 
 of every man's (Hebrew-^'^A) brother will I re- 
 quire the life of The Ada^i.* 
 
 * By translators, man. 
 
198 GENESIS. 
 
 6. Whoso sheddetli The Adam's^ blood, by 
 Adam f shall his blood be shed : for in the image 
 of God made he The Adam, f 
 
 *By translators, man^s. f By translators, man. 
 
 CHAPTEE XI. 
 
 5. And the Lord came down to see the city 
 
 and the tower, which the children of The Adam * 
 
 builded. 
 
 * By translators, men. 
 
HOW THE BIBLE HAS COME TO 
 
 US. 
 
 Regarding the Hebrew kind as being 
 the sole agent of God to bring into exist- 
 ence and present to man His inspired word 
 of the Old Testament, it becomes interest- 
 ing to follow up tlie autograph manuscripts 
 on parchment of the inspired writers and 
 their copies to the present day, and ascer- 
 tain, as far as possible, how much of them 
 are retained in our translations. These 
 manuscripts have long since disappeared, 
 and none of them now exist. We have, 
 therefore, to depend upon the apograph 
 copies, and upon the multiplied copies 
 made from them at various periods; and 
 finally, for ourselves, depend upon their 
 translations into the English language. 
 
 Whoever reads any translation for the 
 
200 HOW THE BIBLE HAS COME TO US. 
 
 mere purpose of criticism, would do well 
 not to read at all. But lie who reads to 
 discover the true meaning, may be com- 
 pelled to criticise and even complain. 
 Fundamentally, we regard the reading of 
 Scripture should be governed by two rules : 
 
 First. Whatever relates to natural 
 facts should be read as agreeing with the 
 developed acts of God in Nature, except 
 they be claimed as special departures re- 
 corded as miracles. 
 
 Second. Whatever relates to morals 
 should be read under the strict control of 
 moral responsibility, imprinted by God on 
 the conscience of every individual. 
 
 If the Scripture was read under these 
 two rules, we should have deeper study 
 into Nature where God transcribes for 
 Himself, and less of general and more of 
 ■pointed criticism to correct whatever of 
 wix)ng may have crept into translations by 
 intention or accident of men. 
 
HOW THE BIBLE HAS COME TO US. 201 
 
 Tlie inspiration of the Old Testament 
 was first written in the Hebrew lansruao^e, 
 and has been continued and preserved in 
 that language to the present day. Some 
 slio-ht chansres have been made in the forms 
 of the letters and in other respects, to ren- 
 der the reading more exact and compre- 
 hensive. All, however, agree, with very 
 few dissenters, comparatively, that the 
 Hebrew text is a daguerrotype of all the 
 inspired ideas, and may be set down as ab- 
 solutely correct in this respect. It is un- 
 necessary to inform the reader that some 
 errors in transcription may have been, and 
 probably were made, and may have been 
 continued. 
 
 Regarding the scrupulous care taken of 
 them, it is equally reasonable to suj^pose 
 that those errors would have been discov- 
 ered in the lifetime of the parchment on 
 which they were written, and hence cor- 
 rected. This may be said more partic- 
 
202 HOW THE BIBLE HAS COME TO US. 
 
 ularly of tlie Pentateucli, wliich contains 
 the Genesis. It was lield in great venera- 
 tion by the Jews, and was read in their 
 synagogues from the earliest times. 
 
 These copies were of two kinds — those 
 for the use of the synagogue, and those for 
 the use of private individuals; the first 
 being made on skins and in rolls, the 
 second being on vellum, parchment, or on 
 paper, in a square form. 
 
 HOW COPIES WEEE MADE. 
 
 We quote from Home, In., vol. i. p. 216 : 
 " The copies of the law must be transcribed 
 from ancient manuscrvpts of approved 
 charaGter only^ with pure ink, on parch- 
 ment prepared from the hide of a clean 
 animal, for this express purpose, by a Jew, 
 and fastened together by the strings of 
 clean animals : every skin must contain a 
 certain number of columns of prescribed 
 length and breadth, each column compris- 
 ing a given number of lines and words : no 
 
HOW THE BIBLE HAS COME TO US. 203 
 
 word must be written by heart or with 
 points; or without being first orally pro- 
 nounced by the copyist : the name of God 
 is not to be written but with the utmost 
 devotion and attention, and previously to 
 writing it, he must wash Ms jpen. The 
 want of a single letter, or the redundance 
 of a single letter, the writing of prose as 
 verse or verse as prose, respectively, 
 vitiates a manuscript : and when a copy 
 has been completed, it must be examined 
 and corrected within thirty days after the 
 writing has been finished, in order to deter- 
 mine whether it is to be approved or re- 
 jected. These rules, it is said, are ob- 
 served to the present day by those who 
 transcribe the sacred writings for the use 
 of the synagogue. The form of one of 
 these rolled manuscripts (from the original 
 among the Harleian MSS. in the British 
 Museum, No. 7619) is here given: 
 
204 HOW THE BIBLE HAS COME TO US. 
 
 " It is a large double roll containing the 
 Hebrew Pentateuch, written with great 
 care on forty African skins. These skins 
 are of -different breadths, some containing 
 more columns than others. The columns 
 are one Imndred and ffty-three in number, 
 each of which contains about sixty-three 
 lines ^ is about twenty-two inches deep, and 
 generally more than ^nq inches broad. 
 The letters have no points, apices, or flour- 
 ishes about them. The initial words are 
 not larger than the rest ; and a space equal 
 to about four lines is left between every 
 two books. Altogether, this is one of the 
 finest synagogue rolls that has been pre- 
 served to the present time. 
 
 THE SQUAEE MANUSCEIPTS, 
 
 which are in private use, are written with 
 black ink — either on vellum or on parch- 
 ment or on paper, and of various sizes 
 — folio, quarto, octavo, and duodecimo. 
 
HOW THE BIBLE HAS COME TO US. 205 
 
 Those which are copied on paper are con- 
 sidered as belonging to the most modern ; 
 and frequently have some one of the Tar- 
 gums or Chaldee paraphrases, either sub- 
 joined to the text in alternate verse, or 
 placed in parallel columns with the text ; 
 or written in the margin of the manuscript. 
 The characters are for the most j)art called 
 the square Chaldee ; though a few manu- 
 scripts are written with rabbinical charac- 
 ters, but these are invariably of recent 
 date. 
 
 "Of the various Hebrew manuscripts 
 which have been preserved, few contain 
 the Old Testament entire ; the greater part 
 comj)rise only particular portions of it, as 
 the Pentateuch, five Magilloth and Haph- 
 taroth or sections of the Prophets, which 
 are read on the Sabbath days ; the 
 Prophets or the Hagiographa." 
 
206 HOW THE BIBLE HAS COME TO US. 
 THE GREEK MAT>rUSCRIPTS. 
 
 The same author remarks : " The Greek 
 manuscripts which have descended to our 
 time are written either on vellum or on 
 paper ; that their external forms vary like 
 the manuscripts of other ancient authors. 
 The vellum is either purple-colored or of 
 its natural hue, and is either thick or thin. 
 Manuscripts on very thin vellum were 
 always held in the highest esteem. The 
 paper also is either made of cotton or the 
 common sort manufactured of linen, and is 
 either glazed or laid (as it is technically 
 termed) ; that is, of the ordinary roughness. 
 Not more than six manuscript fragments 
 on purple vellum are known to be extant. 
 
 •Jf -Sf -Jf -Jf ■??• 
 
 " Nearly the same mode of spelling ob- 
 tains in ancient manuscripts which prevails 
 in Greek printed books. 
 
 * -Sf ^ -Sf * 
 
 "Very few manuscripts contain the whole 
 
HOW THE BIBLE HAS COME TO US. 207 
 
 of either the Old or New Testaments. By 
 far, the greater part have only the four 
 Gospels, because they were most frequently 
 read in churches ; others comprise only the 
 Acts of the Apostles, and the catholic 
 epistles ; others, again, have the Acts, and 
 St. Paul's Epistles; but a few contain the 
 Apocalypse, in connection with other books, 
 and fewer still contain it alone, as this book 
 was seldom read in the churches. Almost 
 all of them, especially the now ancient 
 manuscripts, are imperfect, either from the 
 injuries of time or from neglect. 
 
 4f ^- * '^ ^' 
 
 " All manuscripts, the most ancient not 
 excepted, have erasures and corrections; 
 which, how ever, were not effaced so dexter- 
 ously, but that the original writing may 
 sometimes be seen. When these altera- 
 tions have been made by the copyist of the 
 manuscript, they are preferable to those 
 made by later hands. These erasures were 
 
208 HOW THE BIBLE HAS OOME TO TJS. 
 
 sometimes made by drawing a line througli 
 tlie word, or what is tenfold worse, by tlie 
 penknife. But besides tliese modes of ob- 
 literation, the coj^yist frequently blotted 
 out the old ^witing with a sponge, and 
 Avrote other words in lieu of it ; nor was 
 this practice confined to a single letter or 
 word. ^ "^ '^' Authentic instances are 
 on record in which whole books have been 
 obliterated, and other writing has been thus 
 substituted in the place of the manuscript 
 so blotted out ; but when the writing was 
 already faded with age, they preserved 
 these manuscripts without further erasure. 
 
 THE GEEEK SCEIPTUEES. 
 
 " Of the few manuscripts known to be 
 extant which contain the Greek Scriptures 
 (that is, the Old Testament according to 
 the Septuagint version, and the New Tes- 
 tament), there are two which pre-eminently 
 
now THE BIBLE HAS COIME TO US. 209 
 
 demand tlie attention of tlie Biblical stu- 
 dent, for their antiquity and intrinsic 
 value, viz. : The Alexandrian manuscrij^t, 
 which is preserved in the British Museum, 
 and the Vatican manuscript deposited in 
 the library of the Vatican Palace at Rome." 
 It will be seen that these manuscripts are 
 founded in inspiration, and that the He- 
 brew has greatly the advantage in the ac- 
 cui'acy of its transmission over the Greek. 
 These differences we shall not enter into ; 
 first, because we do not^ possess the knowl- 
 edge requisite to do so; and, second, this 
 is beyond the range of our subject. Al- 
 most all writers, however, seem to agree 
 that the Hebrew inspiration has been trans- 
 mitted in comparative purity, and on that 
 we have depended for our purposes. 
 
THE PIEST ENGLISH BIBLE. 
 
 coyeedale's bible. 
 
 BiBLiA. The Bible, that is, the Holy- 
 Scripture of the Olde and New Testament 
 faithfully and truly translated out of the 
 Douche and Latyn in to the Englishe. 
 [Zurich] M.D. XXXV. folio. 
 
 Home In., vol. ii., Part 1, Chap. I., p. 
 84 : " This first English translation of the 
 entire Bible was made from the Latin and 
 German, and dedicated to King Henry the 
 VIII. by Myles Coverdale, who was greatly 
 esteemed for his piety, knowledge of the 
 Scriptures, and diligent preaching; on ac- 
 count of which quality. King Edward VI. 
 subsequently advanced him to the See of 
 Exeter. -^ ^ ^ He further declared that he 
 
THE bishop's bible. 211 
 
 had neitlier wrested nor altered so much as 
 one word for the maintenance of any man- 
 ner of sect, but had with a clean conscience 
 translated out of the foregoing interpre- 
 ters, having only before his eyes the main- 
 tenance of the Holy Scriptures. ^ ^ ^' This 
 is the first English Bible allowed by royal 
 authority in the year 1536." 
 
 THE bishop's bible. 
 
 This being the Bible from which our 
 King James version was mainly taken, we 
 will go no further back to speak of other 
 versions in the modern European languages. 
 Home says, vol. ii.. Part 1, Chap. L, p. 
 36 : "In the year 1568, the Bible j^roj^osed 
 by Archbishop Parker three years before, 
 was comj^leted. This edition, according to 
 Le Long, was undertaken by royal com- 
 mand. ■^'* "^^ ^' In the performance, distinct 
 portions of the Bible, at least fifteen in 
 number, were allotted to select men of 
 
212 THE KIUTG JAMES BIBLE. 
 
 learning and abilities, appointed, as Fuller 
 says, by the Queen's commission; but it 
 still remains uncertain who,, and whether 
 one or more, revised the rest of the New 
 Testament. Eight of the persons employed 
 were bishops, whence the book was called 
 the ' Bishop's Bible,' or the ' Great English 
 Bible.' " 
 
 THE KING JAMES BIBLE. 
 
 The same author continues: "The last 
 English version that remains to be noticed 
 is the authorized translation now in use, 
 which is commonly called King James's 
 Bible. He succeeded to the throne of 
 England in 1602 : and several objections 
 having been made to the Bishop's Bible, 
 at the conference held at Hampton Court 
 in 1603, the king in the following year 
 gave orders for the undertaking of a new 
 version, and fifty-four learned men were 
 appointed to this imj)ortant labor ; but be- 
 fore it was completed, seven of the persons 
 
THE KING JA]\rES BIBLE. 213 
 
 nominated were either dead or had declined 
 the task ; for the list as given by Fuller 
 comprises only forty-seven names. All of 
 them, however, were pre-eminently distin- 
 guished for their piety, and for their pro- 
 found learnino; in the orio;inal lano-uao^es of 
 the sacred writino-s. And such of them as 
 survived till the commencement of the 
 work, were divided into six classes. Ten 
 were to meet at Westminster, and to trans- 
 late from the Pentateuch to the Second 
 Book of Kings. Eight assembled at Cam- 
 bridge, were to finish the rest of the His- 
 torical Books, and the Hagiographa. At 
 Oxford, seven were to undertake the four 
 greater prophets, with the Lamentations of 
 Jeremiah, and the twelve minor prophets. 
 The four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, 
 and the Apocryj)ha, were assigned to an- 
 other company of eight, also at Oxford ; 
 and the epistles of St. Paul, together with 
 the remaining canonical epistles, were 
 
214 ESrSTEUCTIONS. 
 
 allotted to another company of seven, at 
 Westminster. Lastly, another company at 
 Cambridge were to translate the apocry- 
 phal books, including the prayer of Man- 
 asseh. To these six companies of venerable 
 translators the king gave the following 
 
 INSTEUCTIONS. 
 
 " ^ 1. The ordinary Bible read in the 
 church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible, 
 to he followed^ and as little altered as the 
 original will permit. 
 
 " ' 2. The names of the prophets and the 
 holy writers, with the other names of the 
 text, to be retained, as near as may be ac- 
 cordingly, as they are vulgarly used. 
 
 " ' 3. The old ecclesiastical words to be 
 kept, as the word church not to be trans- 
 lated congregation. 
 
 " ' 4. Where any word hath divers signi- 
 fications that to be kept which hath been 
 most commonly used by the most eminent 
 
INSTRUCTIONS. 215 
 
 fathers, being agreeable to tlie propriety 
 of tlie place and tlie analogy of faith. 
 
 " ' 5. The division of the chapters to be 
 altered either not at all, or as little as may 
 be, if necessity so require. 
 
 " ^ 6. ISTo marginal notes at all to be 
 affixed, but only for the explanation of the 
 Hebrew or Greek word, which cannot with- 
 out some circumlocution so briefly and fitly 
 be expressed in the text. 
 
 ^' ' 7. Such quotations of places to be mar- 
 ginally set down as shall serve for the fit 
 references of one scripture to another. 
 
 " ' 8. Every particular man of each com- 
 pany to take the same chapter or chapters, 
 and having translated or amended them 
 severally by himself where he thinks good, 
 all to meet together to confer what they 
 have done, and agree for their j)art what 
 shall stand. 
 
 " ' 9. As any one company hath de- 
 spatched any one book in this manner, 
 
216 INSTEUCTIO]S"S. 
 
 tliey shall send it to tlie rest to be considered 
 of seriously and judiciously, for his majesty 
 is very careful on this point. 
 
 " ^ 10. If any company, upon the review 
 of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ 
 upon any places, to send them word thereof, 
 to note the places, and then withal to send 
 their reasons ; to which, if they consent not, 
 the difference to be compounded at the gen- 
 eral meeting, which is to be of the chief 
 persons of each company, at the end of the 
 work. 
 
 "^11. When any place of special obscu- 
 rity is doubted of, letters to be directed by 
 authority, to send to any learned in the 
 land for his judgment in such a place. 
 
 "'12. Letters to be sent from any bishop 
 to the rest of his clergy admonishing them 
 of the translation in hand, and to move 
 and charge as many as being skilful in the 
 tongues have taken pains in that kind, to 
 send them particular observation to the com- 
 
n^STEucTioifs. 217 
 
 pany, either at Westminster, Cambridge, 
 or Oxford, according as it was directed 
 before in the King's letter to tlie Arch- 
 bishop. 
 
 " ^ 13. The directors of each company to 
 be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester 
 for Westminster, and the King's professors 
 in Hebrew and Greek in the two univer- 
 sities. 
 
 " ' 14. These translations to be used when 
 they agree better with the text than the 
 Bishop's Bible ; viz., Tindal's, Coverdale's, 
 Matthew's, Whitchurch's, Geneva. 
 
 " ' 15. Besides the said directors before 
 mentioned, three or four of the most an- 
 cient and grave divines of either of the 
 universities not employed in translating, to 
 be assigned by the vice-chancellor upon 
 conference mth the rest of the heads, to be 
 overseers of the translation, as well Hebrew 
 as Greek for the better observation of the 
 4th rule above specified.' 
 
 10 
 
218 THE KING JAMES BIBLE. 
 
 " Tlie translation commenced in the 
 spring of 1607, and tlie completion of it 
 occupied almost three years." 
 
 The whole theory of these regal instruc- 
 tions, and the effort, has, in our humble 
 judgment, been grounded in a radical error. 
 That error consisted in this: They were 
 directed, if we read those directions rightly, 
 to follow the Bishop's Bible mainly. This 
 is the incidental error. But the vital one 
 was, that they were to translate according 
 to their best understanding, derived from 
 their knowledge of the original tongues; 
 and, where differences of opinion existed, to 
 compound those differences. We think all 
 readers will agree that this was the sub- 
 stance of the instructions. 
 
 Suppose, as is claimed by some writers, 
 that there was but one skilled Hebraist 
 (Lively) among the vv^hole number of trans- 
 lators, and as he died before much was 
 done, there was then not one. That on his 
 
THE XmO JAMES BIBLE. 219 
 
 death, Iliigli Brougliton, fellow of Christ 
 College, Cambridge, the only remaining 
 skilled Hebraist in England, proffered his 
 assistance in the important work, and his 
 services were rejected. Assuming these as 
 facts, in what condition was this body of 
 translators to transcribe the pure word of 
 God from the Hebrew? The answer may 
 be found in one point, at least, in the elim- 
 inations and substitutions which passed 
 through their hands in the Genesis which 
 we have pointed out. 
 
 All of them were undoubtedly skilled 
 Greek and Latin scholars ; and the strong 
 inference is, that they were guided by the 
 Septuagint and Vulgate versions of the 
 Scriptures, and set aside entirely the orig- 
 inal Hebrew. Tliis is certainly the most 
 charitable conclusion to arrive at, under all 
 the circumstances. Nor can they 1)e held 
 reprehensibly responsible as faithful trans- 
 lators, if they followed the instructions of 
 
220 TILE Km a JAMES BIBLE. 
 
 His Royal Higliness, King James. They 
 entered upon their task in regal fetters, 
 and emerged from it, producing what he 
 commanded. 
 
 The bare idea of ^'compounding" the 
 word of God to us is so repulsive, that 
 we may sj)eak too strong on the subject. 
 There is no positive proof, so far as we 
 know, that any portion of the Scripture 
 was so compounded. The instructions, 
 however, under which these translators 
 acted, whether they followed them or not, 
 throws a dark cloud of distrust over what 
 they produced, or even let pass through their 
 hands. For we do not know what was, or 
 what was not, compounded; what was, or 
 what was not, translated from original 
 tongues, or what was blindly followed from 
 the Bisho23's Bible. If those instructions 
 had been simple, and to the effect that the 
 translators were to make a faithful trans- 
 lation from the original tongues, and any 
 
THE KING JAMES BIBLE. 221 
 
 portions clearly doubtful should be init 
 down in the original letters and words, to 
 be left for future exj^lauations, the result 
 would have been different, and such a 
 course would have secured the confidence 
 of the Christian world. 
 
 At the time of this translation, but little 
 attention was , paid to the study of the 
 Hebrew. It has since received more con- 
 sideration, and the land now abounds with 
 skilled Hebraists. This has brought out 
 many valuable criticisms, and there never 
 has been a time more opportune than the 
 present enlightened age to collate all of 
 them that will bear the test of truth, and 
 present the word of God as nearly pure, if 
 not altogether so, as the work of man can 
 make it. This, however, can never he done 
 to o-ain the entire confidence" of the Chris- 
 tian world, under the direction of any sect, 
 or of any self-constituted body of men. 
 
 We have already of admitted truth a 
 
222 THE KmO JAMES BIBLE. 
 
 vast book, with comparatively few errors. 
 THese should be gradually eradicated when 
 they become definitely settled upon as 
 errors. How is this to be done ? Not by 
 any regal authority or regal command. 
 Not by any relfgious sect, nor by any self- 
 constituted body, nor by any one man. 
 The Bible is the common inheritance of all 
 Christians, and the Old Testament, of the 
 Hebrews. We hope to live and see the 
 dawn of that day, when those who are 
 most interested in the correction of these 
 errors shall move to a conference upon 
 them. That this conference shall be open 
 to every Christian denomination through- 
 out the world, and to the Hebrews on the 
 Old Testament. If this attempt be made, 
 let no king, potentate, sect, or man control 
 the undertaking. Let the word of God 
 control. 
 
 THE END. 
 
NEW BOOKS 
 
 AND NEW EDITIONS 
 
 RECENTLY ISSUED BY 
 
 G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 
 
 Madison Square, New York, 
 
 The Publisliers, upon receipt of the price in advance, will send any book on this 
 Catalogue by rci&W, Jfostag-e free, to any part of the United States. 
 
 All books in this list [unless otherwise specified] are handsomely bound in cloth 
 board binding, with gilt backs, suitable for libraries. 
 
 Mary J. Holmes' Works 
 
 TEMPEST AND SUNSHINE $1 50 
 
 ENGLISH ORPHANS I 50 
 
 HOMESTEAD ON THE HILLSIDE I 50 
 
 'LENA RIVERS I 50 
 
 MEADOW BROOK I 50 
 
 DORA DEANE I 50 
 
 COUSIN MAUDE I 50 
 
 MARIAN GRAY I 50 
 
 Marion Harland's Works. 
 
 DARKNESS AND DAYLIGHT $1 50 
 
 HUGH WORTHINGTON I 50 
 
 CAMERON PRIDE I 50 
 
 ROSE MATHER I 50 
 
 ETHELYN'S MISTAKE X 50 
 
 MILLBANK I 50 
 
 EDNA BROWNING (nCw) I 50 
 
 ALONE §1 50 
 
 HIDDEN PATH I 50 
 
 MOSS SIDE I 50 
 
 NEMESIS I 50 
 
 MIRIAM I 50 
 
 AT LAST I SO 
 
 HELEN GARDNER I 50 
 
 SUNNYBANK $1 50 
 
 HUSBANDS AND HOMES I SO 
 
 ruby's HUSBAND 1 50 
 
 phemie's temptation Z SO 
 
 THE EMPTY HEART I *0 
 
 TRUE AS STEEL Cnew) X 50 
 
 JES5AMAINE.... (just published) " I 50 
 
 Charles Dickens' Works. 
 
 Carleton' s Neiv Illustrated Edition** 
 
 THE PICKWICK PAPERS %\ 50 
 
 OLIVER TWIST 1 50 
 
 DAVID COl'PERFIELD I 50 
 
 GREAT EXPECTATIONS 1 50 
 
 DOKBEY AND SON I 50 
 
 BARNABY RUDGE X 50 
 
 NICHOLAS NICKLEBY I 50 
 
 OLD CURIOSITY SHOP X 50 
 
 BLEAK HOUSE X SO 
 
 UTTLK DORRIT X50 
 
 BaULAH . . 
 MACARIA. 
 DTEZ 
 
 MARTIN CHUZZLKWIT. $1 50 
 
 OUR MUTUAL FRIEND X 50 
 
 TALE OF TWO CITIES IS© 
 
 CHRISTMAS BOOKS X50 
 
 SKETCHES BY " BOZ " X 50 
 
 HARI TIMES, etc X 50 
 
 PICTURES OF ITALY, etc I 50 
 
 UNCOMMERCIAL TRAVBLLKS X50 
 
 EDWIN DROOD, etc I 50 
 
 MISCELLANIES ... X 50 
 
 Ang^usta J. Evans' NoTels. 
 
 9l 75 I ST. ELMO ..fa OC 
 
 , X 75 VASHTi (new) toe 
 
 I 75 I 
 
G. W. CARLETON &* CO:s PUBLICATIONS, 
 
 Captain Mayne I&eid — Illnstrated. 
 
 SCALP HUNTERS $1 50 
 
 WAR TRAII I 50 
 
 hunter's feast 1 50 
 
 TIGER HUNTER I 50 
 
 OSCKOLA, THE SEMINOLE I 50 
 
 THE QUADROON 1 50 
 
 BANGERS AND REGULATORS I 50 
 
 WHITE GAUNTLET I 50 
 
 WHITE CHIEF fl 50 
 
 HEADLESS HORSEMAN I JO 
 
 LOST LENORE 1 50 
 
 WOOD RANGERS 1 50 
 
 WILD HUNTRESS 1 5C 
 
 THE MAROON.... I 50 
 
 RIFLB RANGERS ,. X 50 
 
 WILD LIFE I 50 
 
 A. S. Roe's IVorks. 
 
 A LONG LOOK AHEAD $1 50 
 
 TO LOVE AND TO BE LOVED I 50 
 
 TIME AND TIDE I 50 
 
 I'vE BEEN THINKING 1 50 
 
 THE STAR AND THE CLOUD I 50 
 
 HOW COULD HE HELP IT I 50 
 
 TRUE TO THE LAST $1 30 
 
 LIKE AND UNLIKE I50 
 
 LOOKING AROUND ,. I 50 
 
 WOMAN OUR -ANGEL I 50 
 
 THE CLOUD ON THE HEART I $0 
 
 RESOLUTION (new) I 50 
 
 Hand-Books of Society. 
 
 THE HABITS OF GOOD SOCIETY. The nice points of taste and good manners, 
 
 and the art of making oneself agreeable ._ $i 75 
 
 THE ART OF CONVERSATION. — A Sensible work, for every one who wishes to be 
 
 either an agreeable talker or listener i 50 
 
 THE ARTS OF WRITING, READING, AND SPEAKING. — An excellent book for Self- 
 
 instruction and improvement _. . i 50 
 
 A NEW DIAMOND EDITION of the abovc three popular books. — Snail size, 
 
 elegantly bound, and put in a box 3 00 
 
 Mrs. Mill's Coolt Book. 
 
 M»s. A. P. hill's new cookery BOOK, and family domestic receipts fa 00 
 
 Cliarlotte Bronte and Miss Mulocli. 
 
 Shirley.— Author of JaneEyre....$i 75 | John Halifax, Gentleman fi 75 
 
 Mrs, N. S. Emerson. 
 
 Betsey and I are Out— And other Poems. A Thanksgiving Story $1 50 
 
 liOUisa M. Alcott, 
 MORNING glories-=A Tjeautifui juvenile, by tne author of " L,ictie "Women 1 50 
 
 The Crusoe Books— Famous "Star Edition." 
 
 ROBINSON CRUSOE. — New illustrated edition.. $1 50 
 
 SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON. Do. Do I SO 
 
 THE ARABIAN NIGHTS. Do. Do I50 
 
 Julie P. Smith's Novels. 
 
 WIDOW goldsmith's DAUGHTER,...^ I 75 I THE WIDOWER §1 75 
 
 CHRIS AND. OTHO I 75 THE MARRIES BELLB I 75 
 
 TEN OLD MAIDS [in press] .... 1 75 1 
 
 Artemns Ward's Comic "Works. 
 
 ARTEMUS WARD — HIS BOOK $1 50 I ARTEMUS WARD — IN LONDON f I 50 
 
 AKTEMU6 WARD — HIS TRAVELS I 50 | ARTEMUS WARD — HIS PANORAMA... 1 50 
 
 Fanny Fern's W^orks. 
 
 FOLLY AS IT FLIES $1 50 I CAPER-SAUCE (new) $1 50 
 
 GINGERSNAPS I 50 | A MEMORIAL. — By JaMES PartOn. . . 2 00 
 
 Josli Billings' Comic W^orks. 
 
 JOSH billings' proverbs $1 50 I JOSH BILLINGS FARMER'S ALMINAX, 25 CtS. 
 
 JOSH KILLINGS ON ICE I 50 1 (In paper co\ers.) 
 
 Verdant Green, 
 
 A. racy English college story — with numerous comic illustrations $1 50 
 
 Popular Italian Novels. 
 
 DOCTOS ANTONIO. — A love story of Italy. By Ruffini $1 75 
 
 BEATRICE CENCi. — By Guerrazzi. With a steel Portrait i 75 
 
 M. Mlchelet's Remarkable Works. 
 
 LOVE (l'amoup). — English translation from the original French $1 50 
 
 WOMAN (LA Ip-EMME). Do. Do. Do ISO 
 
G. W. CARLE TON dr* CO:S PUBLICATIONS 
 
 Ernest Reiian'n Frencli AForks. 
 
 THE lAVK OF JESUS .'Jl 75 I LIFE OK SAINT PAUL $1 75 
 
 LIVES OF THE APOSTLES I 75 | BIliLE IN INDIA. By JaCoUiot 2 CX) 
 
 Geo. W. Carleton. 
 
 OUR ARTIST IN CUBA.— With 50 coiiiic illustrations of life and customs §t 50 
 
 OUR ARTIST IN PERU. Do. Do. Do. ,. 1 50 
 
 OUR ARTIST IN AFRICA. (In press) Do. Do. I 50 
 
 May Agnes Fleiuinj^'s Novels. 
 
 GUY EARLESCOURT'S WIFE $I 75 | A WONUKKFUL WOMAN. §1 75 
 
 ITIaria J. Westmoreland's Novels. 
 
 HRART HUNGRY §1 75 | CLIFFORD TROUP /new) %X 75 
 
 Sallle A. Brock's Novels. 
 
 KENNETH, MY KING $1 75 | A NEW KOUK (in preSS) 
 
 Don Ctnixote. 
 
 A BEAUTIFUL NEW 1 2M0 EDITION. With illustrations by Gustave Dore ^i 50 
 
 Victor Hugo. 
 
 LEs MI3ERABLES. — English translation from the French. Octavo $2 50 
 
 LES MISERABLES. — In the Spanish language 5 00 
 
 Algernon Cliarles Svrinbnrne. 
 
 LAUS VENERIS, AND OTHER POEAis. — An elegant new edition $1 30 
 
 FRENCH LOVE-SONGS. — Selected from the best French authors i 50 
 
 Robert Dale Owen. 
 
 THE DEBATABLE LAND $2 OO | THREADING MV WAY— Autobiography$I 50 
 
 Guide for New York City. 
 
 wood's ILLUSTRATED HAND-BOOK.— A beautiful pocket volume $1 00 
 
 Tlie Game of Whist. 
 
 POLE ON WHIST. — The late English standard work $i oo 
 
 Mansfield T. Walwortli's Novels. 
 
 STORMCLIFF ^I 75 
 
 DELAPLAINE. I 75 
 
 BEVERLY (new) I 75 
 
 WARWICK f I 75 
 
 LULU I 75 
 
 HOTSPUR I 75 
 
 A NEW NOVEL (m press) 
 
 Motlier Goose Set to ITIusic, 
 
 MOTHER GOOSE MELODIES. — With muslc for singing, and illustrations $1 50 
 
 Tales from tlie Operas. 
 
 THE PLOTS OF POPULAR OPERAS in the form of stories $1 50 
 
 M. OT. Pomeroy "Brick." 
 
 SENSE — (a serious book) $1 50 I nonsense — (a comic book) $1 30 
 
 GOLD-DUST do I 50 BRICK-DUST do I 50 
 
 OUR SATURDAY NIGHTS I 50 | LIFE OF M. M POMEROY I 50 
 
 John Esten Cooke's W^orks. 
 
 FAIRFAX §1 SO I HAMMER AND RAPIER f I 50 
 
 HILT TO HILT I 50 OUT OF THE FOAM I 50 
 
 A NEW BOOK (in press) | 
 
 Josepli Rodman Drake. 
 
 THE CULPRIT FAY. — ^Thc well-known faery poem, with 100 illustrations $2 00 
 
 THE CULPRIT FAY. Do. superbly bound in turkey morocco. . 5 00 
 
 Ricliard B. Kimball's Works. 
 
 WAS HE SUCCESSFUL? $1 75 
 
 UNDERCURPJINTS OF WALL STREET. I 75 
 
 SAINT LEGER ■ 75 
 
 ROMANCE OF STUDENT LIFE * 75 
 
 LIFE IN SAN DOMINGO $1 50 
 
 HENRY POWERS, BANKER I 75 
 
 TO-DAY 1 75 
 
 EMiLiE (in press) 
 
 Autlior "Neiv Gospel of Peace." 
 
 CHRONICLES OF GOTHA.M. — A rich modern satire (prjper covers) . 25 cts. 
 
 THE FALL OF MAN. — A satire on the Darwin theory do. 50 cts. 
 
 Celia E. Gardner's Novels. 
 
 CTOLBN WATERS $1 50 | BROKEN DREAMS fl 50 
 
G. W. CARLETON &= CO:S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 WOMEN AND THEATRES. 
 
 Olive liOgan. 
 
 And other miscellaneous topics ^i 50 
 
 Anna Cora MoAvatt. 
 
 ITALIAN LIFE AND LEGENDS $1 50 | THE CLERGYMAN'S WIFE. — A novel. $1 75 
 
 I>r. Cunimings's \l'^orks. 
 
 THE GREAT TRIBULATION .$2 OO I THF GREAT CONSUMMATION ^2 CK) 
 
 THE GREAT PREPARATION 2 OO | THE SEVENTH VIAL 2 OO 
 
 Cecelia Cleveland, 
 
 THE STORY OF A SUMMER ; OR, JOURNAL LEAVES FROM CHAPPAQUA f I 50 
 
 I>r. A. Cazenave, 
 
 THE ART OF HUMAN DECORATION. Translated from the French $i 50 
 
 Samuel T^'^ilberforce. 
 
 LITTLE WANDERERS. Sunday Stories for Children. Illustrated %\ 50 
 
 "Bill Arp." 
 
 PEACE PAPERS. — And Other sketches. With comic illustrations %\ 50 
 
 Miscellaneous Works. 
 
 CHRISTMAS HOLLY. -Marion HarlandSi 50 
 DREAM MUSIC. — F. R. Marvin i 50 
 
 BRAZEN GATES. — A juvenile $1 50 
 
 ANTIDOTE TO GATES AJAR 2$ CtS 
 
 THE RUSSIAN BALL (papCf) 25 CtS 
 
 THE SNOBLACE BALL do 25 CtS 
 
 DEAFNESS. — Dr. E. B. Lighthill... i oo 
 
 A BOOK ABOUT LAWYERS 2 OO 
 
 A BOOK ABOUT DOCTORS 2 CO 
 
 SQUIBOB PAPERS. — John Phosnix. . . i 50 
 WIDOW SPRIGGINS. — Widow Bedott. i 75 
 
 POEMS. — By L. G. Thomas i 50 
 
 VICTOR HUGO. — His life 2 00 
 
 BEAUTY IS POWER 1 50 
 
 WOMAN, LOVE, AND MARRIAGE I 50 
 
 WICKEDEST WOMAN in Ncw York. 25 CtS 
 SANDWICHES. — By Artemus Ward.. 25cts 
 REGiNA. — Poems by Eliza Cruger.. i 50 
 
 Plynioutlj Churcli,— Brooklyn, 
 
 HISTORY OF THIS CHURCH ; from 1847 to 1873. — Portraits and illustration $2 00 
 
 Miscellaneous Novels, 
 
 LOYAL UNTO DEATH *I 75 
 
 BESSIE WILMERTON. WeStCOtt I 50 
 
 PURPLE AND FINE LINEN. FaWCCtt. I 75 
 
 EDMUND DAWN. — By Ravenswood . i 50 
 CACHET.— Mrs. M. J. R. Hamilton, i 50 
 THE bishop's SON.— Alice Gary 1 75 
 
 MARK GILDERSLEEVE.-J.S.SaUzade I 75 
 
 FERNANDO DE LEMOS. — C. Gayarcc 2 00 
 CROWN JEWELS.— Mrs. Moffat I 75 
 
 50 
 
 A LOST LIFE. — By Emily Moore 
 AVERY GLiBUN. — Orpheus C. Kerr. 
 
 THE CLOVEN FOOT. Do. _ 
 
 O. C. KERR PAPERS. — 4 Vols. in I . 
 ROMANCE OF RAILROAD. Smith... 
 
 GENESIS DISCLOSED. — ^T. A. Davies. 
 
 2 00 
 I 50 
 
 I 50 
 I 50 
 
 BOBERT GRKATHOUSE. J. F. Swift. 2 OO 
 
 FAUSTINA. — From the German i 50 
 
 MAURICE. — From the French i 50 
 
 GUSTAVH ADOLF.— From the Swedish i 50 
 
 ADRIFT WITH A VENGEANCE I 50 
 
 UP BROADWAY. — By Eleanor Kirk. . i 50 
 
 MONTALBAN I 
 
 LIFE AND DEATH I 
 
 CLAUDE GUEUX. — By Victor Hugo. i 
 FOUR OAKS. — By Kamba Thorpe. . . 1 
 ADRIFT IN DIXIE. — Edmund Kirke. i 
 
 AMONG THE GUERILLAS. 
 AMONG THE PINES. 
 MY SOUTHERN FRIENDS. 
 DOWN IN TENNESSEE. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 . I 
 
 Miscellaneous Works, 
 
 A BOOK OF EPITAPHS. — Amusing, quaint, and curious (new) f i 50 
 
 SOUVENIRS OF TRAVEL. — By Madame Octavia Walton LeVert 2 00 
 
 THE ART OF AMUSING. — A book of home amuscments, with illustrations 1 50 
 
 HOW TO MAKE MONEY ; and how to keep it. — By Thomas A. Davies i 50 
 
 BALLAD OF LORD BATEMAN. — With Illustrations by Cruikshank (paper) 25 cts 
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES ; at the " White House." — By Elizabeth Keckley 2 00 
 
 THE yachtman's PRIMER. — For amateur sailors. T. R. Warren (paper) 50 cts 
 
 RURAL ARCHITECTURE. — By M. Field. With plans and illustrations 2 00 
 
 LIFE OF. HORACE GEEELEY. — By L. U. Rcavis. With a new steel Portrait 2 00 
 
 WHAT I KNOW OF FARMING. — By Horace Greeley _ i 50 
 
 PRACTICAL TREATISE ON LABOR. — By Hendrick B. Wright. 2 00 
 
 TWELVE VIEWS OF HEAVEN. — By Twelve Distinguished English Divines...... i 50 
 
 HOUSES NOT MADE WITH HANDS. — An illustrated juvcnile, illust'dby Hoppin.. i 00 
 
 CRUISE OF THE SHENANDOAH — The Last Confederate Steamer i 50 
 
 MILITARY RECORS OF CIVILIAN APPOINTMENTS in the U. S. Army 5 00 
 
 IMPENDING CRISIS OF THE SOUTH. — By Hinton Rowan Helper 2 00 
 
 NEGROES IN NEGROLAND. Do. Do. Do. (paper covers) . I 00 
 
CHARLES DICKENS' WORKS. 
 
 A IVcw Edition. 
 
 Among the numerous cclilions of the works of this greatest of Eng- 
 lish Novelists, there has not been until now one that entirely satisfies the 
 
 public demand Without exception, they each have some 
 
 strong distinctive objection, . . . either the shape and dimensions 
 of the volumes are unhand|f — or, the type is small and indistinct- or, 
 the paper is tlun and poor — or, the illustrations [if they have any] are 
 unsatisfactory — or, the binding is bad — or, the price is too high. 
 
 A new edition is ilow^ however, published by G. W. Carleton & Co. 
 of New York, which, it is believed, will, in every respect, completely 
 satisfy the popular demand. . . . It is known as 
 
 "Carletoji's IVcw Illu§tratcd Edition." 
 
 The size and form is most convenient for holding, . . the type is 
 entirely new, and of a clear and open character that has received the 
 approval of the reading community m other popular works. 
 
 The illustrations are by the original artists chosen by Charles 
 Dickens himself . . . and the paper, printing, and bmding are 
 of the most attractive and substantial character. 
 
 Th»^ publication of this beautiful new edition was commenced in 
 April, 1873, and will be completed in 20 volumes — one novel each 
 month — at the extremely reasonable price of $1.50 per volume, as 
 follows : — 
 
 I — THE PICKWICK PAPERS. 
 2 — OLIVER TWIST. 
 3 — DAVID COPPERFIELD. 
 4 — GREAT EXPECTATIONS. 
 5 — DOMBEY AND SON. 
 6 — BARNABY RUDGE. 
 7 — NICHOLAS NICKLEBY. 
 8 — OLD CURIOSITY SHOP. 
 9 — BLEAK HOUSE. 
 ID — LITTLE DORRIT. 
 
 1 1 — MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT. 
 
 12 — OUR MUTUAL FRIEND. 
 
 13 — TALE OF TWO CITIES. 
 
 14 — CHRISTMAS BOOKS. 
 
 15 — SKETCHES BY "BOZ." 
 
 16 — HARD TIMES, ETC. 
 
 17 — PICTURES OF ITALY, ETC. 
 
 18 — UNCOMMERCIAL TRAVELLER. 
 
 19 — EDWIN DROOD, ETC. 
 
 20 — MISCELi. \NIES. 
 
 Being issued, month by month, at so reasonable a price, those who 
 begin by subscribing for this work, will imperceptibly soon find them- 
 selves fortunate )wners of an entire set of this best edition of Dickens' 
 Works^ almost ^\ ithout havmg paid for it. 
 
 A Prospectus furnishing specimen of type, sized-page, and illustra- 
 tions, will be sent to any onQfree on application — and specimen copies 
 of the bound books will be forwarded by mail, postage free ^ on receipt 
 of price, $1.50, by 
 
 G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 
 
 Madiiion Square, New York. 
 
THREE VALUABLE BOOKS, 
 
 All Beautifully Printed and Elegantly Bound. 
 ♦ 
 
 I.— Tlie Art of CoiiversatioM, 
 
 With Directions ^or Self-Culture. An admirably conceiv*ed and entertaining 
 work — sensible, instructive, and full of suggestions valuable to every one wlio 
 desii-es to be either a good taUier or listener, or who wishes to appear to advan- 
 tage in good society. Every young and even old person should read it, study it 
 over and over again, and follow those hints in it which lead them to break iip 
 
 bad habits and cultivate good ones. 
 be found chapters upon — 
 Attention in Conveesation.— Sat- 
 ire.— Puns.— Sarcasm. — Teasing. — 
 C ENSURE. — Fault-Finding.— Egot- 
 ism. — PoiiiTENESs. — Compliments. — 
 Stories.-Anecdotes.-Questioning. 
 -Liberties.— Impudence.-- Staring. 
 —Disagreeable Subjects. — Sel- 
 
 ;* Price $1.50. Among the contents will 
 
 FisHNESs. — Argument.— Sacrifices. 
 —Silent People, — Dinner Con- 
 VERSATioN.- Timidity.- Its Cure. — 
 Modesty. — Correct Language. — 
 Self-Instruction.—Miscellaneous 
 Knowledge.— Languages. 
 
 II.— The Habits of C^oocl Society. 
 
 A Handbook for Ladies and Gentlemen. With thoughts, hints, and anecdotes 
 concerning social observances, nice points of taste and good manners, and the 
 art of making oneself agreeable. The whole interspersed with humorous illus- 
 trationa of social predicaments, remarks on fashion, etc. *;,:* Price $1.75. 
 Among the contents will be found chapters upon — 
 
 Gentlemen's Preface. 
 
 Ladies' Preface. — Fashions. 
 
 Thoughts on Society. 
 
 Good Society.— Bad Society. 
 
 The Dressing-Eoom. 
 
 The Ladies' Toilet.— Dress. 
 
 Feminine Accomplishments. 
 
 Manners and Habits. 
 
 Public and Private Etiquette. 
 
 Married and Unmarried Ladies. 
 
 Do do Gentlemen. 
 
 Calling Etiquette.— Cards. 
 Visiting Etiquette.— Dinners. 
 Dinner Parties. 
 
 Ladies at Dinner. 
 Dinner Habits. — Carving. 
 Manners at Supper. — Balls. 
 Morning Parties.— Picnics. 
 Evening Parties. — Dances. 
 Private Theatricals. 
 Receptions.— Engagements. 
 Marriage Cerebionies, 
 Invitations. — Dresses. 
 Bridesmaids. —Presents. 
 Travelling Etiquette. 
 Public Promenade. 
 Country Visits. — City Visits. 
 
 III.— Art§ of Writing, Reading, and Speaking. 
 
 An exceedingly fascinating work for teaching not only the beginner, but for 
 perfecting every one in these three most desirable accomplishments. For youth 
 this book 's both interesting and valuable ; and for adults, whether professionally 
 or socially, it is a book that they cannot dispense vv'ith. *^* Price $1.50. Among 
 the contenis will be found chapters upon — 
 Reading & Thinking.— L.vnguagI:.— 
 Words, SEN.rENCES, & Construction. 
 What to Avcld. — Letter Writing.— 
 Pronunciation.— Expression. — Tone 
 Religious Readings.— The Bible. — 
 Prayers.— Dramatic Readings.— The 
 Actor & Reader.— Foundations for 
 Oratory and Speaking. — What to 
 
 These works are the most perfect of their l-ind ever puhli^hed ; fresh, sensible 
 {joocl-hiimored. entertaining, and readable. Every xx^rnon of taste should pos- 
 sess them, and cannot be otherwise than delighted with them. 
 
 5f^^ A beautiful new minature edition of these very popular books has just 
 been published, entitled "The Diamond Edition," three little vohmies. ele- 
 gantly printed on tinted paper, an<J handsomely bound in a box. Price $3.00. 
 
 *^* These books are all sent by mail, postage free, on receipt of price, by 
 
 Q. W. CAELETON ^ CO., PulDlishers, Madison Square, New York. 
 
 Sat.— What not to Say. — How to 
 Begin.- Cautions.-Delivery. -Writ- 
 ing A Speech. — First Lessons. — Pub- 
 lic Speaking.— Delivery.- Action. 
 Oratory of the Pulpit.— Cojiposi- 
 tion. — The Bar. — Reading of "Wit & 
 Humor. — The Platform. — Construc- 
 tion of a Speech. 
 
.,ca, Sem,na,,-Speer t.'brar. 
 
 ™'7^T2 010153254