120 Remarks on Prof. Stuarfs examination of Gen. I. 



cribed, and in my apprehension is not intended to be described." 

 Here we are told, that there is an important difference in the wri- 

 tings of Moses, and in other parts of the scriptures, between realities 

 and manner; and are led to infer, that this difference is of great val- 

 ue in the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. What more 

 necessary, then, than some criterion, by which realities and manner 

 may be distinguished from each other? And without some such 

 criterion of what use is this rule ? Yet to aid the inquirer in apply- 

 ing this specious rule of sacred criticism, not one word is said ; and the 

 rule, so far as appears, is worthless. But perhaps Prof. Stuart ex- 

 pected, that his readers would look to what he has himself done 

 with the rule, and learn its application from the use which he has 

 made of it in the particular exposition under consideration. Let 

 the inquiry then be instituted, how Prof. Stuart has practically dis- 

 tinguished between realities and manner. According to his exposi- 

 tion, the firmament is spoken of by Moses as " solid and extended," 

 and this firmament is represented as retaining "the waters above, 

 that is those which fall in showers of rain ;" and the windows or lat- 

 ices, of heaven as being opened and shut, as it rains or ceases to 

 rain. But all that is meant here is, " the welkin or apparent arch 

 of the heavens, or the clouds over our heads with the atmosphere." 

 Here if Prof. Stuart is rightly understood, the " solid and extended" 

 firmament is manner, except so far as there are realities in " the 

 clouds over our heads with the atmosphere ;" and the waters above 

 the firmament, and the windows in the firmament are realities in no 

 respect, but manner absolutely. Now let the reader look at this, 

 and discover if he can, what criterion Prof. Stuart here employed 

 to distinguish realities from manner. If he had not expressly ban- 

 ished all modern science from the interpretation of Moses, there 

 would appear to be little difficulty in the case. The belief would 

 then be irresistible, that whatever, in the Mosaic account of the cre- 

 ation, agrees with modern science, as Prof. Stuart understands it, is 

 reckoned among realities ; and that whatever in this account, is con- 

 tradicted by modern science, as Prof. Stuart understands it, is placed 

 to the account of maniier. But this conclusion the reader is not at 

 liberty to adopt, as it would bring Prof. Stuart into direct collision 

 with his great critical canon for interpreting ancient writings. He 

 says, moreover, (p. 79.) " When we inquire simply and philologi- 

 cally what Moses said, and testified and meant, we know of no rule 

 which obliges us, nay of none which permits us, to accommodate his 



