118 RemarTis on Prof. StuarVs examination of Gen. I. 



But it may be said, that if Prof. Stuart has not, in the present case, 

 made use of his canon of criticism in form, he has yet adduced what 

 he considers parallel cases of interpretation, and in this way confirm- 

 ed the meaning which he has put upon the language of Moses. It 

 is true, that hfs has brought forward what he appears to intend for 

 illustrations of his construction of the passage in question, and these 

 shall now be considered. Thus he says, " the evangelist speaks of 

 lunatics being healed by Christ, Math. 4 : 24. 17 : 15," and adds, 

 that we are not to assume the fact that Matthew designed to teach, 

 " that the moon has a real and actual influence in creating disease." 

 But where is the parallelism between the two cases ? Moses speaks 

 of the beginning of the firmament, its creation ; and represents it, 

 according to Prof. Stuart, to be "solid and extended." Matthew 

 says nothing directly of the origin of lunacy, or of the nature of this 

 disease. The two cases are, therefore, wholly unlike. The latter, 

 in no respect, illustrates the former. Moses, as Prof. Stuart asserts, 

 speaks of the firmament as having been created " sohd and exten- 

 ded." If Matthew had been speaking directly on the origin of luna- 

 cy, and had ascribed this disorder to the influence of the moon, the 

 two cases, then, would have had some points of resemblance, and 

 might perhaps be compared. But, if Matthew had here directly 

 treated of the origin of lunacy, and had described its nature, it would 

 be just as difficult to show, that he did not mean what he said, as it 

 now is to do the same office for Moses : and if Matthew might be 

 brought to explain Moses — Moses, with the same propriety, might 

 be brought to explain Matthew ; but 



" Nil agit exemplum litem qucd lite resolvit." 



Prof. Stuart likewise says, " Paul asks the Galatians, who had 

 beioitched them, that they should not obey the truth. Gal. 3: 1.;" 

 and adds, that we are not to assume the fact from this language, that 

 Paul tauo-ht, " that the doctrine of witchcraft is something, which is 

 to be truly and philosophically credited." Here again the case is 

 not such a one, as to throw any light on what it is brought to illus 

 trate. If St. Paul had been speaking of the origin of witchcraft, 

 and its characteristics, there might have been some similarity between 

 the two passages. As the fact is, there is no similarity. But per- 

 haps Prof. Stuart will say, that the words lunatics and bewitched 

 meant, in their original application, something diiFerent from what 

 they mean as used by Matthew and Paul ; and that on this account 



