122 Remarlcs on Prof. Stuarfs examination of Gen. I. 



sacred writers understood in Europe, when this theory was first pub- 

 hcly taught ? 



But it is asked, " Do not we, after the Newtonian philosophy has 

 so long been spread before the world, and our popular calenders all 

 constructed on its basis — do not we still speak of the sun as rising 

 and setting 1" — Most certainly, this language is still used ; and as 

 certainly, by a large part of mankind, it is used to declare their be- 

 lief in the /bc^, no less than m the appear ajice. When one, who 

 admits the truth of the Copernican system, speaks of the rising and 

 setting of the sun, he means the appearance only ; and when one, 

 who is ignorant of that system, or who does not admit its truth, uses 

 the same words, he means both the appearance and the fact. The 

 science of the individual makes the difference ; from the words no 

 certain conclusion can now be drawn. Just so far, therefore, as 

 Prof. Stuart can make it probable, that the sacred writers were ac- 

 quainted with the true solar system, or any other which would re- 

 quire the same distinction to be made, he may conclude, that they 

 distinguished between fact and appearance in the phenomena of the 

 heavens ; apd beyond this, on his own principles, he cannot go. His 

 reasoning, in the present case, if correctly apprehended, is this. 

 Those who adopt the Copernican system, now make a distinction be- 

 tween fact and appearance in celestial phenomena, and this distinc- 

 tion is founded on a belief in the truth of that system ; theirefore Moses, 

 who as far as appears was unacquainted with that system, or any oth- 

 er which would separate appearance from fact, made the same or a 

 similar distinction. It might perhaps be hazardous to characterize 

 such ratiocination ; but if it is not bringing modern science to illus- 

 trate the first chapter of Genesis, it bears a striking resemblance to 

 such a process. Prof. Stuart's exposition of the language of Moses 

 respecting the firmament, may be, or may not be, right. On this 

 point nothing will be said. The simple inquiry now is, whether if 

 he had employed no science in this exposition, which is not as old 

 as the Pentateuch, he would ever have mkvred philologicalli/, that 

 Moses did not intend to be understood to say, that there are waters 

 above the firmament, or windows in the firmament, or that the firma- 

 ment itself is a solid and extended covering of the earth ? 



Prof. Stuart still farther to illustrate this part of his subject, adds, 

 " that the description of the work of creation, as a whole, contains 

 several things, that are said altogether in accordance with things as 

 viewed by the physical eye, 1 have not the least doubt." Why this 



