Remarks on Prof. Stuart's examination of Gen. 1. 123 



is said, or what strength it adds to his argument, is not very appa- 

 rent. That there are " several things" represented in the manner 

 now mentioned, may be true ; and it may hkewise be true, that 

 there are " several things'' represented, not altogether, or exclusive- 

 ly, as viewed by the physical eye. The remark, to be of any val- 

 ue in the interpretation of Moses, needs some direction appended, 

 to show how it should be applied. Would Prof. Stuart include in 

 his list of the " several things" which are " represented as viewed by 

 the physical eye" — the " waters above the firmament ?" Are these 

 mentioned as something visible 1 and not rather, if a judgement is to 

 be formed from his exposition, as something to account for the falling 

 of rain ? 



Prof. Stuart proceeds to interpret another passage. " Verses 15, 

 16," he says " describe the creation of the sun, moon and stars, and 

 all as designed for the service of the earth. The countless host of 

 heaven occupies but a single clause in the writer's account — he made 

 the stars also. As an astronomer Moses did not surely write." 

 Here, as well as in the preceding comment, there is some reason to 

 complain of the course which Prof. Stuart has adopted. He has 

 laid down a rule of criticism applicable to the interpretation of the 

 Mosaic writings ; but when he comes to interpret them, of his rule 

 he says nothing ; or if he makes use of it, he does this so obscurely, 

 that the application is not perceived. Thus, in the present instance, 

 his comment on the fifteenth and sixteenth verses is, " as an astron- 

 omer Moses did not surely write." But on what ground is this infer- 

 ence made ? How does it appear, that Moses did not write what is con- 

 tained in these verses, with all the astronomical knowledge current in 

 his time ? This was the very point about which it was important 

 that infoj'mation should be given ; but yet Prof. Stuart has put down 

 with extreme brevity the result of his examination of this passage, 

 without any part of the process by which he obtained it. If he ex- 

 pected his readers without aid, to supply the hiatus in his reasoning, 

 he has taxed their ingenuity and patience most unwarrantably. Is it 

 possible, that Prof. Stuart has come to this conclusion, by comparing 

 the account of Moses with astronomy as developed in the Copernican 

 system ? He must mean either, that Moses did not write as an as- 

 tronomer of the present age, or as an astronomer of his own age. 

 But to say, that Moses did not write as an astronomer of the pres- 

 ent age, would be, to say the least, to give a very unnecessary piece 

 of information, or would be to recur to modern sciellce for the pur- 



