habitual, without derogation to the inspired authority of the teacher.

On such a ground we might certainly be permitted to regard the first chapter of Genesis as embodying what were the commonly received ideas among the Jews, borrowed perhaps from some poetical cosmogony, and which Moses was inspired to adapt and apply to the ends of religious instruction;-to the assertion of the majesty, power, and unity of the Creator, and the prohibition of the worship of false gods; especially of those animals and other material objects which were peculiarly pointed out as being merely the creatures of the true God; and this doubtless in a more particular enumeration, because they were especially the objects of that idolatrous worship into which the Israelites were so prone to relapse. The entire description being thus divested of the attributes of a real history, the concluding portion of it, the account of the solemnization of the seventh day as the Sabbath is of course equally divested of an historical character, and thus cannot be understood as referring to any primeval institution, and can therefore only be regarded as having been designed for the more powerful enforcement of that institution on the Jews. And this indeed would be no more than accords with the opinion of many of the most approved commentators, who on quite independent critical and theological grounds, have regarded the passage (Genesis ii. 3,) conveying that

8

institution as correctly to be understood in a proleptical or anticipatory sense.

Perhaps such an accommodation might be made to the ignorance of the Jews in the introduction of the law, in order to avoid the unnecessary difficulty of a collision with invincible prepossessions on subjects irrelevant to the purpose of the law, and which in fact would but have tended to make them reject it. It may also be contended that in general any notion of a Divine communication implies adaptation to the ideas, language, habits, dispositions, and opinions of the parties addressed; since words, and existing notions, and prevalent modes of belief, of necessity form the only means and channels of communicating the religious truths intended to be conveyed. Thus, in such a case the introduction of views in themselves at variance with truths since elicited, is compatible with the veracity of the inspired teacher, and the absence of such a knowledge as has since been obtained of facts which did not concern the tenour of his particular commission, is without difficulty reconcileable with his inspired and infallible knowledge of the truths which it was his province to communicate.

Some writers, indeed, have felt no repugnance even to the idea of an adaptation, on the part of an inspired teacher, to the prejudices and errors (known by him to be such,) of his hearers; though others, on the contrary, cannot conceive or allow such an

accomodation; regarding it as a compromise of integrity incompatible even with moral honesty, and much more with the indwelling of the spirit of truth. Perhaps, however, some distinction may be allowed between the actual and formal inculcation of such views, and their incidental adoption as a vehicle for other instructions.

Representation of the Creation in the Decalogue.

BUT the great difficulty in the present case arises from the circumstance of the same main statement occurring in a more brief and pointed form in the delivery of the Decalogue. Here it is manifest the same considerations will no longer avail. For admissions which might be allowed with respect to a human teacher divinely inspired, would not apply in the instance of a direct declaration by the Divine voice and actual inscription by the Divine act.

It is needless to enlarge on the difficulties with which the subject is surrounded. It involves a question of the most serious moment from its extensive application in theology, which is forced upon us by the consideration of the present subject, and has also claimed much attention as bearing widely upon the character of other Divine communications recorded in the Bible. It amounts to this,-whether, and to what extent, we can consistently believe the Deity to have adopted the course of accommodating the representations in which he thought fit to clothe

!

his communications to the existing prejudices and belief, even when erroneous, of the parties addressed? Without pretending here to discuss the general question, I would merely ask, what is the least objectionable course to pursue?

In every rock we trace infallible monuments of the progress of creation; we truly read the records in "tables of stone inscribed with finger of God," When we compare those with documents of a different kind, we are compelled to acknowledge the visible inscriptions and the written representation to be at direct variance, so long as the historical character of that representation be insisted on. The only alternative is to admit that it was not intended for an HISTORICAL narrative; and if the representation cannot have been designed for literal history, it only remains to regard it as having been intended for the better enforcement of its objects in the language of figure and poetry:-and to allow that the manner in which the Deity was pleased to reveal himself to the Jews as accomplishing the work of creation was (like so many other points of their dispensation,) veiled in the guise of apologue and parable; and that only a more striking representation of the greatness and majesty of the Divine power and creative wisdom was intended by embodying the expression of them in the language of dramatic action.

Importance of the Question.

BUT without insisting on these or the like suggestions as entirely satisfactory, I will only further observe in general, that with reference to prevailing opinions, the subject is manifestly of a nature which cannot be safely neglected or passed by; but which all friends to truth are most imperatively called upon to examine fully and candidly in the present times, when it is continually being brought more widely into public notice.

Its importance is, indeed, now beginning to be generally acknowledged. It is in vain that one party may endeavour to gloss over the difficulties, or to dismiss them with some vague general remark; and another go into the minuteness of critical details for finding some hardly-strained verbal construction into which the phraseology of the sacred narrative may be tortured to effect a reconciliation; or a third, seek to mislead the public by false and absurd misrepresentations of the geological evidence. These attempts may, perhaps, for the moment, obtain the assent of the unreflecting reader, and for a time lead blindfold the opinions of the many by the authority of some eminent name, or supply a convenient form of words under the shelter of which the believer may exempt himself from the necessity of inquiry, and repose from the labour of thought, and in which the sceptic may find himself provided with a convenient disguise of approved and