124 Remarks on Prof. StuarVs examination of Gen. 1. 



pose of determining in what character he wrote ; which would be to 

 encroach, as it should seem, upon the author's critical canon. 



It must be kept in mind, that Prof. Stuart is interpreting the first 

 chapter of Genesis philo logically, having ruled out all discoveries in 

 science, since the time of Moses, as irrelevant, and inapplicable to 

 the case. His meaning therefore must be, that Moses did not write 

 as an astronomer of his own time. But here the inquiry immediately 

 suggests itself, what probability is there, that a system of astronomy 

 was current at the time of the writing of thePentateuch,of whichMoses 

 was ignorant, or which, if it was known to him, he did not think it prop- 

 er to notice, in his history of the creation ? He certainly speaks of 

 the sun, moon and stars, the great subjects about which astronomy 

 is conversant. The heavenly bodies are not introduced into the 

 narrative incidentally or cursorily, or as by a writer who did not com- 

 prehend astronomy in his plan, and who notices the subject indirect- 

 ly and by reference. The sun, moon, and stars are mentioned as a 

 part of the creation ; nor does it at once appear from the language, 

 though perhaps Prof. Stuart could show the contrary, that they 

 have not their relative importance assigned them, according to the 

 views of the historian ; and that he did not write with all the astron- 

 omy in view, of which he was possessed, or which was known by those 

 among whom he lived, and for whom he wrote. Prof. Stuart himself 

 (p. 80.) says of Moses, " the distances, magnitudes, orbicular motions, 

 gravitating powers, and projectile forces, of the planets and of the 

 stars, are all out of the circle of his history, and were probably be- 

 yond his knowledge." When Moses, therefore, after having described 

 the firmament, had related, that the sun, moon, and stars were set " in 

 the firmament of the heavens, to give light upon the earth ;" and 

 having before affirmed, that these " lights in the firmament of the 

 heaven," were to divide the day from the night," and to be " for 

 signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years," what more as an 

 astronomer, that is, of his own age, could he have to say ? After 

 Moses had described such a firmament, as. Prof. Stuart says, he has 

 described, is not his system of astronomy such an one, as corresponds 

 to that firmament, and, on the plan of the writer, as complete as any 

 thing in the narrative ? It is to be regretted, that Prof. Stuart did 

 not turn his attention more particularly to the elucidation of this 

 point ; and especially, that he has not made it more clear, that his 

 conclusion, in ihis case, has heeu philologically deduced. 



