Many among the ancients and moderns have objected to a literal interpretation of the cosmogony of Moses. Whilst it has been a source of doubts and difficulties to the best commentators, it has furnished occasion of indecorous and misapplied raillery and ridicule to the enemies of revealed religion in all ages. Eusebeus, by way of apology for the Mosaic account of creation, says, (Presp. Evang. I. ii. 7,) “ that it was not Moses' intention to give 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 powerful Creator." Cyril makes a similar reply to the scoffs of Julian, "that Moses' view was to accommodate his story to the ignorance of the Jews; not to reason accurately on the origin of things, but to show that there was one God who created them all." (Julian, Oper. and Cyril Contr. Vol. ii, 1, 3, p. 50, &c., Ed. Leps.) Philo, (Cosmop. 1. i, tom. i, p. 123,) calls it a "piece of rustic simplicity to imagine that God really employed the labor of six days in the production of things; "" in which he is followed by Origen, Austin, Ambrose, &c. Accordingly, several ancient writers have adopted an allegorical interpretation. Josephus, in the first chapter of his "Jewish Antiquities," intimates, "that the story of the creation was of the allegoric kind." Philo is evidently of the same opinion. Among the moderns, and especially among those who have been referred to the class of sceptical writers, the same allegorical interpretation has generally been adopted.

1

See Blunt's "Oracles of Reason;" Tolland's "Pantheistican;" and "Letters to Ierena;" Burnett's "Archaeologia," (1. ii, c. 7, 9;) Middleton's "Essay on the Allegorical and Literal Interpretation of the Creation and Fall of Man," in his "works," vol. ii, p. 123-126, and his "Examination of Sherlock's discourse on Prophecy," in his "works," vol. iii, p. 192, &c. Dr. Burnett, in particular, maintains that the Mosaic account was merely a fable, though, according to this representation of it, a fable too absurd for a wise man, and much more for an inspired person to have formed. But surely there can be no reason for admitting this hypothesis, if the literal interpretation be capable of a philosophical explanation; more especially as Moses does not inform us where his fable ends, and where his true history begins, and as Christ and his Apostles refer to the story of the creation and that of the fall (see fall,) inseparably connected with it, not as an allegory, but true history. 2 Cor. iv, 6; xi, 15. 1 Cor. xv, 45. Matt. xix, 4, 5. 1 Tim. ii, 13, 14. 1 Cor. xi, 9. Besides, it is not very natural to suppose that God would so solemnly, from Mount Sinai, make the circumstances of a fable the foundation of the fourth commandment. Exod.

xx, 11. Heb. iv, 3, 4.

A late biblical critic (see Dr. Geddes' critical remarks, vol. 1,) rejects both the literal narration and the pure allegory, and alleges that the Mosaic account is a most beautiful mythos, or philosophical fiction, contrived with great wisdom, dressed up in the garb

of real history, adapted to the shallow intellects of a rude barbarous nation, and perfectly well calculated for the great and good purposes for which it was contrived; namely, to establish the belief of one supreme God and Creator, in opposition to the various and wild systems of idolatry which then prevailed; and to enforce the observance of a periodical day to be chiefly devoted to the service of that Creator, and the solacing repose of his creatures. In fact, says this writer, what stronger motive could be urged to preserve a people from idolatry, than by showing, in so minute a detail, that all the worship-objects of the surrounding nations were themselves but mere creatures, the great celestial luminaries (most probably the first objects of adoration,) not excepted? He had, no doubt, particularly in view the idolatry of Egypt; where, as Bassent elegantly says, "Tout etoit Dieu, excèptè Dièu mème; et cete Terre, qu'il avoit fait, pour y manifester sa gloire, sembloit ètre devenue un temple d'Idoles." (Disc. sur. 1. Hist. Univ.) Beside the sun. moon, and stars, they adored the fishes of the sea the birds of the air, the animals of the earth, and even the herbs of the field, radishes, leeks and onions.— "O sanctas gentes: quibus haec nascuntur in hortis. Numina!"

It was then of the utmost importance to persuade the Israelites, who had during their stay in Egypt, been more or less contaminated by those idolatrous rites, that every plant of the field, fish of the sea, bird of the air, and beast of the earth; the whole visible

world, in short, was the production of a superior Being, to whom alone divine worship could be due. In particular by the great quadrupeds and the great sea-monsters, it is supposed that he alluded in the former, to the worship of Apis in the form of a bull, and in the latter to a crocodile, which, in some parts of Egypt, was held in the greatest veneration. The hypothesis, says Dr. Geddes, of a mere partical mythos, historically adapted to the senses and intellects of a rude unphilosophical people, will remove every obstacle, obviate every objection, and repel every sarcasm; whether it came from a Celsus or Prophyry, a Julian or a Frederick, a Boulanges or a Bolingbroke.

As we have already exceeded the proper boundaries of a single lecture, I shall defer to my next, such remarks as the last quotations may suggest.

LECTURE III.

THE ORIGIN OF OUR GLOBE ASTRONOMICALLY AND GEOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED, AND THE MOSAIC HISTORY OF IT JUSTIFIED AND DEFENDED BY SCIENCE.

Not having had space in my last lecture for comments upon the closing extracts, which I quoted for the sake of reviewing some of the singular opinions expressed in them upon the subjects under discussion, I will here recur to them again. From them it will be forcibly apparent, that learned men will sometimes entertain and give utterance to most consummate philosophical nonsense, so to speak, when struggling to account for difficulties, without the proper data, from which to reason, and such a knowledge of facts and analogies, as is indispensable to guide one correctly through long chains of intricate deduction to legitimate conclusions.

The idea expressed in one of the extracts, that, "if 10,000 suns should, at once, be placed in our hemisphere," "no light would appear," "unless the substance of light previously existed through the whole system" is a rare specimen of "confusion worse confounded"-the grossest solecism-a perfect contradiction in terms, which no scholar would perpetrate, unless he had got into an inextricable dilemma, and knew no other way of getting out again. It is, in