380 
for the seeming presumption of putting, in parenthesis, the phrase “ added 
by a later hand ” (p. 344). I do not expect any one to take that on my 
dictum ; but not to go into all the evidence, which would require a paper 
three or four times as long, I may say I have evidence on the point 
which I think is conclusive. I simply wish to explain that what I 
mean is that I believe Moses was the author or compiler of Genesis, and 
I believe the second chapter is mainly from him, but that he had the 
cosmogony of the first chapter already in existence before him, and in using 
it he added other clauses concerning the creation. The passage “ breath- 
ing into his nostrils the breath of life,” I do not treat with any disrespect, 
but I believe it had reference only to the people of Israel, and not so much 
to the whole world. That was why I thought it necessary to put in that 
clause. One point has already been touched upon by others — that is, that 
I fully admit that there is a sense in which all things are still dependent on 
God — I fully admit that as Ruler and Governor His work in the universe 
is essential to the continuance of the universe. But I draw a distinction 
between the creative energy and the sustaining energy, with which we have 
to deal at the present time. With regard to the “ self-sustaining power,” 
perhaps the language I used was a little too strong ; but having previously 
used language quite as strong as to God being still Ruler and Governor, I 
thought I might use the terms I did in reference to the self-sustaining force 
of nature. There is now no creation going on, but all the energy and force 
appears to reside within nature, not coming to it as a fresh impulse from 
without. Then there are a few cases in which the renderings I adopted 
have been called in question. I pointed out the different senses in which 
the Hebrew verb rnn is used. My authority was Dr. Pusey, who is 
universally regarded as a first-rate Hebrew scholar, who deals with the point 
in his preface to the Prophet Daniel. I therefore take it that the sense 
and construction of the second verse does imply that chaos was the state 
and condition in which the earth first existed, and not into which it passed. 
When Dr. Pusey, who had nothing to prove by it, stated that the Hebrew 
would bear that construction, I thought I had a right to use it. The 
mere difference of tense, however, was not my argument. Part of what I 
meant is that all through a particular form of the verb “ to be ” is used to 
express succession, and where another form is used I think it shows 
that the author meant to imply something different. That is a sound argu- 
ment, even if the Hebrew tenses are rather lax. Then there is a question as 
to my translating “ and made” to “by making.” I can quote three or four 
first-class Hebrew scholars who have given this as the proper grammatical 
interpretation. It is the infinitive of the verb, and so may be translated 
“ to make ” or “ by making,” but it cannot be translated “ and made.” Then 
there is the important point as to the word “ day.” I did not expect 
that every one, or indeed many, would see what exactly I meant by my 
view. We are so in the habit of associating the word “day” in the 
first chapter of Genesis, with a short period of twenty-four hours, or 
a long definite period of time, and have completely shut out of our minds 
