"to me to correspond the best, both to the signi 66 66 fication of the words, and to the nature of the subject to be explained'." The rules which constitute the canons of this interpretation, are these two: 66 1. That "the style of the first chapter, as of "the whole book of Genesis, is strictly HISTORICAL; "and that it betrays no vestige whatever of allegorical or figurative description: -- stylum hujus capitis, quemadmodum totius Geneseos, esse HIS"TORICUM; nec allegoria vestigium ullum apparere the truth of which proposition, (he 66 66 66 66 66 justly adds), must be so manifest to any one "who reads with attention, that it can need no proof-id cuivis attentè legenti ita clarum esse debet, ut probatione non egeat." This position, is alleged against certain loose and visionary critics, who were more inclined to study the indulgence of their fancies, than to exercise the labour of their judgments on points which their reason did not instantly apprehend. 66 66 2. That, since this history was adapted to the comprehension of the commonest capacity, Moses speaks according to OPTICAL, not PHYSICAL truth: quia tota hæc historia captui vulgi est accommodata, loquitur Moses ex veritate OPTICA, 66 поп PHYSICA" that is, he describes the effects of creation optically, or, as they would have 66 2 Id. p. 8. 3 Id. p. 9. 1 ROSENMULLER, Sen. p. 7. appeared to the eye1; and without any assignment of physical causes. In doing which, he has not merely accommodated his narrative to the apprehension of mankind in an infant state of society, and employed a method of recital best suited to a vulgar capacity; but, he thereby also satisfies an important requisition of experimental philosophy, viz. to describe effects accurately, according to their sensible appearances: by which means, the mind is enabled to receive a clear and distinct impression of those appearances, and thus to reduce them to their proper causes, and to draw from them such conclusions as they are qualified to yield. For, as the mineral geology has justly remarked in the passage quoted in the preceding chapter from M. D'Aubuisson; "the determination of causes, must fol"low our acquaintance with their effects.". "From "the oversight of which principle, (as the learned "German expositor has truly observed,) a great part of interpreters have wandered so far into error, as to imagine they have detected the SYSTEMS of modern physics in the recital of Moses; and have perverted and tortured his language, into an adapta"tion to their own preconceived opinions?.” 66 66 66 66 66 "The sacred historian (observes also Bishop Horsley) describes the progress of the work by the phænomena, such as they would have suc"cessively appeared to a spectator, had a spectator been in existence. "Or, we may say, he describes the work in its different stages to a "supposed spectator." ― Biblical Criticisms, vol. i. p. 2. This method of description, is characteristic of the simplicity of primitive narration. 2 ROSENMULLER, Sen. p. 14. 66 These two canons of interpretation, will thoroughly vindicate their validity in the following exposition; and will fully demonstrate," that "the first chapter of the record discloses an interpretation, in which the laws of physics and the language of the Hebrew text, subsist in the closest harmony: - quòd hoc caput interpretationem legi"bus physicis prorsus consentaneam, eandemque "verbis textûs Hebræi aptissimam, patitur1." 66 The Mineral Geology, in order to preserve the perfect independence of its speculations in the remoteness of time, and to relieve itself from the restraint of perpetually submitting those speculations to a standard of authority, strives to establish the principles that the Mosaical record “treats only of the history of Man;" and, that it " does not go so far back into the history of the globe," as it is itself enabled to do by the acuteness of its scientific penetration. How far it is supported in these very hazardous assertions, and in this exalted pretension, will be rendered thoroughly apparent in the progress of our examination of that record. CHAPTER III. ACCORDING to the method of recital exposed in the preceding chapter, the historian thus delivers the First Article of his sacred history: 66 66 66 66 66 "In the BEGINNING, GOD created the HEAVEN and the EARTH. 66 BUT, the EARTH was INVISIBLE, and UNFURNISHED, and DARKNESS was upon the face of the deep: THEREFORE the Spirit of God went 'forth upon the face of the waters, and God said, LET THERE BE LIGHT! and there wAS LIGHT! "And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness; and God "called the light DAY, and the darkness He called 66 NIGHT. 66 "And the evening and the morning were the FIRST DAY." Such was the primitive interpretation of this great opening article of the Record; which uniformly maintained its authority, not only throughout the ages of the ancient Hebrew church, but also, during the first and most learned ages of the Christian. In considering this first article, and others of the following articles of the history, it will be advisable that we should proceed, 1. by establishing the interpretation of the passage; 2. by deducing its true import; and 3. by considering the particular errors which have resulted from a defective interpretation of the text. And I. 1. This sublime article, immediately presents to our attention a very important grammatical and critical question; which appears to have been entirely overlooked by all modern commentators, but on which nevertheless, as will presently be seen, the correct interpretation of the context essentially depends. This question, regards the true signification of the Hebrew conjunction), vau, at the beginning of the second clause; which particle is employed no less than fourteen times, in the original of this first article. This conjunction, to which the elder Michaelis assigns thirty-seven different significations, and Noldius upwards of seventy, is a particle which discharges in the Hebrew language the functions of all the conjunctions, both copulative and disjunctive; its sense being determinable, in each particular case, only by the relation of the context, and the practice and genius of the language. On which account it has been acutely remarked, that "since we are not exercised, as the Hebrews were, immediately to adapt our thoughts, upon the occurrence of this simple particle, to the different respects which the discourse requires; he who "should always interpret by et, and, would not place us in the same position with the Hebrews; for, we need a further guidance to fix its actual 66 66 66 66 |