:

probable we can even now perceive a certain general resemblance between the description, and the process we have indicated and every one is aware that it was usual, in after-times, to speak of the mind of man as a microcosm a little world, while the Greek fabulists commonly represented his various sentiments, by numerous objects selected from animated nature.

This style did not originate with the Greeks, it prevailed long before they existed as a nation, and it can be historically traced among people of much higher antiquity; the Egyptians, for instance.

If then, the early portions of Genesis should prove, as we believe they will do, not to be a history of physical things, but the history of mental processes and phenomena, expressed in a peculiar way, it will follow, that long and large mistakes have been made concerning them, and that most of the valuable information, they were written to convey to posterity, has been entirely overlooked by them.

We are aware that there are those, who have great hesitation in attaching any other meaning to the words of the Bible, than that which they ordinarily bear. They seem to think, that in giving up their physical sense, or natural application, they must relinquish their real and solid signification. But, as it is evident, that there are multitudes of instances in the Bible, in which words are employed in a sense widely different from that, in which they are commonly used, that hesitation cannot be well founded. The fact which it supposes, cannot be maintained. Moreover, those who consider the words to be significant of spiritual things, regard such things to be much more real, solid, and enduring, than any thing which the physical sense attached to them can express; and therefore, the setting aside their ordinary signification, does not deprive them of a meaning, having relation to reality.

The "bending" of the language of God's Book to any other than its obvious meaning, is said to be an "impiety."* But is it not the circumstance of the meaning not being always obvious, which necessitates the commentary? That which is plain needs no interpretation: the clear signification is brought out by the "bending," i. e. the interpretation, since, without it, there are numerous instances, in which there would be either no sense, or something exceedingly ambiguous. There cannot be any impiety

*E. B. Pusey, Regius Professor of Hebrew in Oxford. Letter to Dr. Buckland, in his Bridgewater Treatise, Geology and Mineralogy, p. 25.

INTERPRETATION NECESSARY.

17 in the honest endeavor, to render God's Book intelligible and instructive to its thinking readers. Impiety lies upon the other side, -in permitting ideas to be cherished, under the supposition that they are contained in God's Book, when in reality, they are not to be found therein, but are crude inductions, arising from erroneous meanings being attached to its language. The very fact, that it is God's Book, implies that it contains more than what immediately appears upon the surface, and thus, that the words are but the outer vehicle of some more interior thought, which interpretation is required to eliminate.

The narratives before us are conceded to be a Divine production; we believe that they, together with the whole Scriptures, contain within themselves much fuller evidence of this fact, than any which merely verbal or historical criticism can ever reach. Our inquiries then, do not involve any thing touching their authenticity and genuineness as a revelation from God: that to which our investigation relates, is the sense in which the Church should understand them. That they do require interpretation seems evident from the extensive commentaries, which, from time to time, have been written for their elucidation. The design of those productions has been, for the most part, to uphold the literal sense of these documents: and yet how very unsatisfactory is much that has been written on this side of the subject, when compared with what a free and philosophical inquiry will demand. When such writers have reached points, which have come into collision with the suggestions of reason, they have insisted on the necessity of faith, and pleaded the inexplicability of omnipotence. A becom ing piety is always proper in such investigations, but it was never intended to direct us from the path of enlightened investigation. We freely admit the value of faith, and at once concede the incomprehensibility of the Divine Power. This admission and concession ought to induce us to approach Scripture investigation, with humility and caution, but surely, they do not require us to relinquish the endeavor to rightly understand any thing, that has been delivered to us as a Revelation from God. Reason, consid ered as a faculty of our nature, is as much the production of God, as is the revelation of the Scriptures. They are designed mutually to assist and illustrate each other: and whensoever they are brought into collision, it is the result of some perversity on the part of man. When he is in order, the Scriptures will harmonize with his highest wants and perceptions.

Most persons are aware, that there are many serious difficulties, in the literal sense of the early portion of the Word, which remain unsolved, and that bright minds and deep learning have been employed upon the inquiry, without a successful issue. There are large numbers in the Professing Christian world, who are not yet convinced, that a right path has been chosen for this pursuit, and many will be glad and free to have the opportunity of considering some new views on the whole subject. These, in the course of this work, it will be our endeavor to provide; offering, as we proceed, such confirmation from revelation, evidence from history, and responses from the living sentiments of humanity, as our acquaintance with them will enable us to supply.

To doubt the truth of certain human interpretations of the Scripture, is one of the immunities of Protestant Christianity; and, notwithstanding religious differences have sprung out of this freedom, more generous and enlightened views have been promoted by its exercise. We are about to employ this privilege in another department of biblical inquiry; but for no other purpose, so far as we know our own hearts, than to advance the interest of what we believe to be the general scope, rational meaning, and religious design of the early chapters of the Book of Genesis. We believe those documents to be descriptions of spiritual phenomena only, and think that men did not begin to attach a natural meaning to them, until they had descended from an ancient state of intellectual eminence, and suffered their faith to pass into the obscurities of sensual apprehension. We hold, that it could not have been the intention of the Sacred Writings, to communicate to man instruction concerning physical truths. These were open to the scientific investigation and common understandings of natural men and the progress of science, in disclosing the monuments of the past ages of terrestrial existence, has established facts, which are utterly repugnant to the popular interpretation of the first chapter of the Hebrew Scriptures. The evidences, which geology has brought to light, carries us back into an unutterable period of time. They prove a duration to the earth; demonstrate the existence of living structures, of great diversity and interest, belonging to both the vegetable and animal kingdoms; they proclaim the operation of phenomena, and certify to innumerable events, all of which are plainly inconsistent with the notion, which regards the first chapter of Genesis to be a circumstantial narration of the primordial creation.

THE DEMANDS OF GEOLOGY.

19

These facts are now very generally acknowledged by learned men of all parties; not that they have abandoned the idea of the Mosaic history giving an account of the creation, but that they have relinquished those long-standing opinions, which it was supposed circumstantially to indicate.

The lapse of immense periods of time, which geology proves to have taken place before the creation of man, also, those evidences which show, that before that event, there had come into being successive orders of animal and vegetable life, differing from existing species, and all of which had as gradually become extinct, are discoveries which affect, in their consequences, the entire view to be taken of the whole subject. These facts, being inconsistent with what, for centuries, had been considered as the obvious meaning of the Mosaic cosmogony, demand, either that the narrative should no longer be considered as a description of physical creation, or, that it should be so interpreted, as to harmonize with the unquestionable discoveries of science. The former course was too serious a matter to be attempted. The notion of this record being a description of creation, in some sense, had become too venerable a prejudice to be suddenly put aside; the latter, therefore, has been undertaken by learned men.

But after the display of much effort in that direction it has been said, that the object of Genesis "was not to state in what manner, but by whom the world was made." * This is cutting the difficulty shorter, but it does not explain it. A summary statement of this nature could not have been satisfactory to the authors of it: the details of the narration are too many to have permitted such a result. It certainly does state by whom the world was made; but is there not also a precise description of the order of the process, and are there not some indications of the manner? Every one knows, that all things are distinctly said to have been spoken into existence and there are few, who have not noticed the manner in which the making of woman was begun. Into what palpable dilemmas will the adoption of erroneous premises conduct us! If it is once clearly perceived, that an explanation of physical crea

* Dr. Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise, p. 33. Art. Creation, Kitto's Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature. Eusebius also says, "It was not the intention of Moses to detail a philosophical account of the formation of the world, but to signify only that it did not exist of itself or by chance, but was the production of an all-wise and all-powerful creator." Oracles of Reason, 1. 4, p. 186. Euseb. Præp. Ev. 2, 7.

tion does not properly belong to a system of theology, then it will soon be acknowledged, that the Mosaic description, considered as a revelation from God, must refer to other phenomena.

The natural explanations which have been offered, are too vague and general to be received as the true meaning of those ancient writings, neither have those views taken any hold upon the public mind. These expositors have not been agreed on any precise theory of the earth's existence and phenomena; and therefore, they have not succeeded in squaring up the narrative for popular acceptance. Hence, while the old ideas, which used to be regarded as the obvious sense of the history, are thoroughly exploded by scientific discovery, the new interpretations which have been attempted, are received with distrust, so that popular Christianity is left in complete uncertainty, as to the real meaning of the narrative.

It may not be unacceptable, to notice what have been the principal views of the Mosaic record, which those scientific discoveries have led biblical students to adopt. At the very outset, it is demanded, that the literal interpreter of the Scriptures should make concessions that he should give up much of the usual and ordinary signification attached to the language. The precise amount of yielding is not defined, but it is evident that a considerable quantity is required.

It was long a customary thing, to look upon the stratified condition of the earth, as the result of the Noetic deluge. But it is now admitted upon all hands, that this could not have been the cause. The vestiges of animals, belonging to extinct genera and distinct periods, with which the strata abound, prove that they had lived at incalculable distances of time; and also, that the strata, in which they are found, had been very gradually deposited. This, therefore, sufficiently proves, that the few months' continuance of the Deluge, could not have been the cause, by which those wrecks were produced.

Another hypothesis was, that the earth's strata were formed at the bottom of the sea, during the time which intervened between primordial creation and the flood; at which period, it is supposed, that the antediluvian continents were submerged, and the bottom of the sea raised to supply their place. This, however, is a mere conjecture, at which there is not the slightest hint in all the narrative, and against which there is this scientific fact, namely, the remains of land animals of distinct geological periods.