RemarJcs on Prof. Stuarfs examination of Gen. 1. 117 



outset, what he calls " a u(fTSPov ir^ors^ov In hermeneutics." Prof. 

 Stuart was at liberty to bring to this interpretation, no science, but 

 such as was current among the Israelites in their passage through 

 the wilderness. It was his business to inform his readers, what the 

 cotemporaries of Moses, what Aaron, Joshua and Caleb understood 

 by this " solid and extended" firmament, and whether they believed 

 this language to mean precisely what is now meant by the welkin. 

 This was the point to be ascertained, and it was what Prof. Stuart, 

 on his own principles was bound to show. Or, if he felt himself un- 

 able absolutely to prove, that the cotemporaries of Moses under- 

 stood this language in the sense in which he says that Moses meant 

 it, he should have attempted to m.ake out some such probability as 

 to warrant a belief, that the language of Moses, when first published, 

 or at some time during the Jewish commonwealth, was understood 

 to mean what he now understands it to mean. 



Prof. Stuart adds, " we are not to assume the fact, that Moses 

 taught or designed to teach the doctrine, that the apparent celestial 

 arch above our heads is of solid matter." But why ? If Moses actu- 

 ally says, as according to Prof. Stuart he does say, that the celestial 

 arch above our heads is of " solid matter," why is there a greater 

 impropriety in assuming that he means what he says, than in assu- 

 ming, as Prof. Stuart does, that he means something else, on the face 

 of it, altogether diverse? Prof. Stuart comes before the public with 

 the declared design of interpreting Moses philologically. But which 

 assumption is most philological, to take language in its obvious sense, 

 unless a reason is assigned why it should be understood in some oth- 

 er, or to take it in a sense deduced only, so far as appears, from the 

 application of the discoveries of science, and possibly, of compara- 

 tively recent science ? If ever a reason was necessary, for a depar- 

 ture from the obvious meaning of language, such a reason seems to 

 have been required, in the present instance. It should be recollected, 

 that the question now, is not, whether the construction put upon the 

 words of Moses, in this instance, is correct. For the purpose of the 

 present discussion, it is unimportant, whether it is correct or not. 

 The simple inquiry now is, — Has Prof. Stuart interpreted Moses in 

 consistency with his own principles ? Until additional light is thrown 

 upon this matter, and if a judgment must be formed from the exhi- 

 bition of his reasoning here made, the inference seems fully warrant- 

 ed, that he has not. 



