126 



Remarks on Prof. Stuart* s examination of Gen. I. 





some inherent power. To prevent a mistake in this matter, Prof. 

 Stuart says, this is optical. But how? Plants are seen to spring out 

 of the ground, but the cause of their springing is invisible. There 

 seems to be an inference here ; at least, this is as probable, as that 

 the whole is optical. Will Prof. Stuart explain, philologically, 

 how, when Moses says, that the waters brought forth fowl, this can 

 be said to be an optical description, and not rather an inference 



from what is optical? 



The reader is disappointed likewise, at the course which Prof. Stu- 

 art has adopted in his explanation of this passage. From his princi- 

 ples of interpretation, the expectation is excited, that he will endeav- 

 or to ascertain, how this language was understood among the cotem- 

 poraries of Moses, or the Israelites of later days ; but of this he says 

 nothing ; nor has he in this case, more than in the former, made any 

 use, which is discernible, of the great rule of expounding the Mosaic 

 writings, with which he sets out in his inquiries. Especially, he 

 says not a word to remove the impression, which some might receive, 

 that the philosophy of the time of Moses, might agree with the lite- 

 ral interpretation of the text. Indeed, there is some appearance, 

 that his own philosophy has, in this instance, as heretofore, got the 

 better of his philology, and that the latter has been insensibly ac- 

 commodated to the former. 



I 



But Prof. Stuart, without doubt, will maintain, that all his conclu- 

 sions, as to the meaning of the first chapter of Genesis, which have 

 now been considered, are correct ; and that they have been philolo- 

 1 gically deduced. As his skill in Hebrew criticism is not denied, 

 perhaps he will be able to show this. Let it then be conceded for 

 the present, that his reasoning is throughout sound and legitimate ; 

 and the question will be, What rules of interpretation can be derived 

 from these examples of true philological exposition, to direct inter- 

 preters through other parts of this chapter ; and as the case may be, 

 through the rest of the Old Testament. These examples should be 

 considered as patterns, according to which, similar investigations may 

 be pursued ; and as these examples have important relations to mod- 

 ern science, no reason appears, why geologists may not profit by 

 them as well as others. 



It appears, then, by reference to Prof. Stuart's exposition of parts 

 of the first chapter of Genesis, made, as is for the present admitted, 

 on the purest principles of philology, that a firmament said to be 

 solid and extended, and retaining water above it, except when this 



