The entire book of Genesis is ascribed to Moses on most valid grounds; whether as compiler only or as original author, is, therefore, the first question.――――I do not see how this point can be determined with absolute certainty. The probabilities in my view favor the supposition of previously written documents, these probabilities arising, not to any considerable extent from manifest differences of style in its various portions, and not at all from diversities in the use of the names of God, Jehovah and Elohim; but mainly from the strong presumption that such genealogical records as abound in Genesis, coupled so largely with numbers, would be put in writing before the age of Moses. Men who had the knowledge of writing would certainly appreciate its utility for the preservation of such facts as these.――――And further; the very use of the word “generations”[1] (Gen. 2: 4) in the sense of history, and much more still the statement (Gen. 5: 1), “This is the _book_ of the generations of Adam,” raise this presumption nearly or quite to a certainty.――――In making up the historical portions of the Scriptures it seems rational to assume that the Lord moved “holy men of old” to put in writing such facts falling under their personal observation and immediate knowledge as he deemed useful for these sacred records. In some cases the writer might be (as was Luke) just one remove from the original eye-witnesses, yet in a position to learn the facts with “perfect understanding” and “certainty.” We should not doubt the _power_ of God to give to holy men these historic facts by immediate revelation; but the question is not one of power, but of wisdom, of divine policy, and of fact. The divine policy seems to have been (in this case as in miracles) never to introduce the supernatural, the miraculous, to do what the natural might accomplish equally well. On this principle inspired men were moved of God to use their own eyes and minds in writing Scripture history in all cases when the facts came within their certain knowledge. There were facts, like these of the creation, which fell under no human eye, and which therefore do not come under this principle. Some form of direct revelation from God is, therefore, to be assumed here. Though the supposition of a revealing angel might find some support from subsequent prophetic Scriptures, yet a direct revelation from God to some inspired writer is the more obvious supposition.――――It has been asked――Was this creation in its processes and announcements shown in a manner analogous to prophetic vision――the writer then recording in his own phrase what he saw and heard?――――There being no testimony on this point from either of the two parties――the divine Revealer or the human writer――we must leave it undecided. Fortunately it is of no particular importance to us.――――It is, however, of some importance that we consider the question whether in this account of the creation we are