47S Archaia. 



An important point now comes [up for consideration in rela- 

 tion to the authority of the record, namely : in what sense the 

 allusions to nature contained in it are entitled to be regarded 

 as having the authority of inspiration ? Do they merely repre- 

 sent the knowledge of nature existing at the time, or are they 

 the result of a " divine afflatus?" Our author is disposed to 

 take a higher view than the first, and as a naturalist, to form a 

 much higher estimate of the references to nature embodied in 

 the Scriptures. This we regard as a most satisfactory statement. 

 It does not go the length of saying that the representations of 

 nature in the Bible are revelations, but only that they have been 

 recorded under the guidance of inspiration. This we conceive 

 is the true position to take. We do not find the Creator re- 

 vealing that which can be discovered by the faculties he has 

 given us. In all His relations with men, he honors, much more 

 than philosophers do, the wonderful organs of perception with which 

 he has endowed the human race. The Creator has faith in human 

 eyes and ears. He knows that they are " very good." In regard 

 to those things, therefore, which lie within their reach, he gives 

 no revelation, but when such things stand related to the spiritual 

 truths which pertain to the moral government of mankind, then 

 he so guides the prophets that no human weakness or prejudice 

 shall mar the perfect action of their perceptive organs. Besides 

 this, we never find the Creator choosing fools for his prophets. 

 Making every allowance for the exaltation of mind which inspir- 

 ation must produce, we yet find in all the messengers of God 

 evidence of high mental capacity and of a special mental training 

 for the services to which they had been summoned. 



Taking this view of the question we may expect to find in the 

 Bible allusions to natural phenomena, whL'h in their truthfulness 

 rival the demonstrations of natural science. 



But we must now, preparatory to some criticism, of our author's 

 views on the meaning of the terms in the first chapter of Genesis, 

 make a preliminary statement which we deem of the utmost con- 

 sequence in the discussion of the topics contemplated, namely, 

 that the language of Scripture in all its allusions to and descrip- 

 tions of nature is always and entirely the language of appear- 

 ances — in its body and substance it is the result of actual 

 experience — of " optical impressions of nature." This statement 

 has been frequently made by others, and is incidentally noted by 

 our author, but it has not, as we think, been sufficiently insisted 



