166 
they would have appeared to a human spectator ; or, as has been otherwise 
stated, it narrates only those things which are necessary to the development 
of a religious system. Consistently with this idea, the moon, though abso- 
lutely the smallest light in the planetary system, is described as second only 
to the very greatest, the sun.* It is not then the planet as it is, but the planet 
as man would see it, that is described. There must always have been 
a danger lest erroneous physical ideas should intrude into the domain of 
theology, and it was probably to prevent this that the doctrine of the true 
God — His omnipotence and beneficence — was put before the world, not in 
abstract propositions, but embodied and illustrated in the attractive form in 
which the sacred historian presents it. So long as the general object and 
tendency of the account are not misapprehended, it is of little import- 
ance how far that account is taken literally. Some persons are indeed 
impatient of any, even the least, divergence from the strict letter of the 
narrative, as if it must undermine revelation itself ; but the great majority 
of Christians are content with a less rigid theory of interpretation. Humble- 
minded and devout readers of the Bible yield very yillingly to the impression 
made on the mind by the account primd facie and as it stands, and yet, deep 
in their hearts is the conviction that the narrative is largely figurative and 
poetic.t They believe in Divine purposes and acts, but in their calm judgment 
they would question whether in literal fact the Almighty gave express names 
to the light and the darkness ; and whether in articulate words God com- 
manded the separation of earth and water. It produces in the minds of such 
persons the effect of poetry rather than of unadorned narration, when it is 
said that the Almighty breathed into the nostrils of man the breath of life, 
and he became a living soul. Lastly, when we are told that God said, as if 
in soliloquy, — “ It is not good for man to be alone ; I will make a help meet 
for him,” we have a representation not of the speech, but of the will of God, 
and that in a manner fitted to produce a just and natural impression upon 
the mind. It has been the object of the author of the sacred account, in 
dealing with the facts on which that account is based, to treat them as 
if he were giving an exact and literal description of the process of creation. 
It is customary for a man to frame a deliberate purpose in words, and in 
* I think not. The original narrative says that God made the two 
great — not planets — not heavenly bodies — but lights or luminaries. 
They are called great, not in reference to their size, real or appa- 
rent, but in reference to the amount of light which the earth receives 
from them. The literal translation of the Hebrew (Gen. i. 16) is, “And 
God made the two great luminaries : the great luminary to rule the day, 
and the little luminary to rule the night, and the stars.” And so we find it 
in the German translation which was made by eminent Jewish scholars 
(Amheim, Burst, Sachs), and edited by the late Dr. Zung (Berlin, 1873). 
“ Und Gott rnachte die beiden grossen Lichter ; das grosse Liclit zur 
Hcrrschaft des Tages, und das kleine Liclit zur Ilerrschaft der Naclit, und 
die Sterne. — A. I. M‘0. 
f I think not ; although occasionally figurative, there are no data for 
saying that the narrative is poetic. — A. I. M‘C. 
