Remarks on Prof. Stuart's examination of Gen. I. 115 



who reason from certain facts real or supposed, as connected with a 

 science, may be a fair and legitimate object of critical examination, 

 even by some who are not versed in the detail of the science in ques- 

 tion. " Under this shield, then, the following remarks will be haz- 

 arded. *> 



Prof. Stuart, that his readers may be fully aware of the grounds 

 of his reasoning, has laid down, before entering on his main topic, a 

 canon of criticism applicable to the interpretation of all ancient wri- 

 tings, and particularly as he maintains, of the writings of Moses. " I 

 am unable" he says, (p. 49.) " to see how the discoveries of mod- 

 ern science and of recent date, can determine the meaning of Moses' 

 words* Nothing can be more certain, than that the sacred writers 

 did not compose their books with modern sciences in view, or, in- 

 deed, with any distinct knowledge of them." Again (p. 51.) he 

 remarks, " I am now concerned merely to show, that modern science 

 not having been respected [?] in the words of Moses, it cannot be 

 the arbiter of what the words mean which are employed by him. 

 Indeed, this proposition is so plain, as to its general nature, that it 

 does not need any confirmation." He adds, (p. 81.) "Is he [the 

 interpreter of scripture] to resort to a recent science, in order to ex- 

 plain what was writen some 4000 years ago ? Then the state of 

 modern Greece under the Turks may interpret the Iliad ; and that 

 of present Italy, the JEneid, or the works of Livy. But all must 

 see, that this will never do." — The same idea is repeated again and 

 again, in other parts of his dissertation, and in a great variety of 

 forms. Here, then, if the meaning of any writer can be clear, Prof. 

 Stuart would be understood to say, that no principles of science, dis- 

 covered by philosophers after an author has written, can be appli- 

 ed to explain the meaning of that author ; and the reader is led to 

 infer, that the Professor is about to interpret the first chapter of Gen- 

 esis in strict accordance with this great rule of critical exposition. 



It will be attempted in what follows to show, in the first place, 

 that Prof. Stuart, in the interpretation of some parts of this chapter, 

 has left his own rule above stated entirely out of sight, or has made 

 no intelligible application of it; and in the second place, that if cer- 

 tain expositions given by Prof. Stuart are according to his rule, 

 then, agreeably to the same rule, every thing is granted which the 

 geologists need, or can, ask. The first inquiry, then, will be, wheth- 

 er Prof. Stuart, in his explanation of certain passages of the first 

 chapter of Genesis, has not neglected his own canon j — Or, in other 



