therefore, they are not to be understood in the sense which the letter conveys; that would be a certain distortion of their true meaning.

In referring the production of those remarkable documents, to the period in which that peculiar genius prevailed, we do not mean to insinuate that they are the mere fanciful results of that genius. We regard them as containing the inspiration of the Almighty, and venerate them as portions of the pure Word of God. What we intend by this reference is, that God was pleased to adopt, as the vehicle for his communications, the mode and style then prevalent with men, yet so regulating the expressions and marshalling the narrative, that it should contain no word, indicate no sentiment, declare no story, but what was the exact counterpart of some spiritual things.

This characteristic, indeed, must be acknowledged to pervade the whole Word of God, though the representations that were selected, in those remote times, appear to have been more recondite, than those which were adopted at a latter period, in consequence of mankind having began to mistake their sense, or falsify their meaning.

The Scriptures, peculiarly Israelitish, commence with the history of the house of Abram; that, indeed, contains real facts as they are described; nevertheless, they are to be considered as the mediums for containing, and representatively expressing, those interior sentiments and spiritual ideas, which are proper to them as a Revelation. The mere literal facts and history can hardly, in themselves, be viewed as revelations: it would be unsatisfactory, to grant an immediate revelation of his authority and his grace to the Athenians, in the age of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and for their use; we may reverentially believe that, in such a case, the communication would have been expressed in the terms and phrases to which they had habituated themselves, and moulded upon a system of references to the natural scenery around them, to their modes of action in social life, and to their current notions upon all other subjects. Not only would the diction have been pure Greek, but the figures, the allusions, and the illustrations, of whatever kind, would also have been Attic. The Hebraized style which was adapted to the people of Israel, would have failed to convey just sentiments to the men of Greece; for though it would not have been absolutely unintelligible, the collateral ideas would have been misapprehended, false bye-notions would have insinuated themselves, and the principal sentiments, to inculcate which was the object of the whole process, would have been grievously distorted.” — Dr. Pye Smith. Scripture and Geology, p. 239.

THE NARRATIVE INSPIRED.

35

to suppose that any other divine interference with their production I took place, than what was requisite to determine the particular points, which were to be stated as the true representations of spiritual realities, the disclosure of which must been their main object, considered as revelations from God.

But the character of the Bible narratives, anterior to the time of Abram, though equally divine, is observed to be very different in their literal structure, and some critics, from an apparent irregularity in the arrangement, have considered them fragmentary selections, and others pronounce them to be distinct compositions. * However this may be, they are plainly the productions of another hand, than that which has written the history of the house of Abram; and there is some reason to believe, that they formed a portion of a more ancient revelation from God, than that which is now extant. Moses himself has intimated, that there were books of divine authority among mankind, antecedent to his time. He has referred to them by name, cited passages from them, and embodied them in his own Pentateuch. Thus, after describing the several journeyings of the sons of Israel, and particularly their removal from Zared to the other side of Arnon, he writes: "Wherefore it is said, in the Book of the wars of Jehovah, what he did in the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Arnon, and the streams of the brook that goeth down to the dwelling of Ar, and lieth upon the border of Moab." And again, after announcing the conquests of the Israelites over the Ammonites and the villages of Heshbon, he writes, “Wherefore say the Enunciations, (Hammoshelim, i. e., the books of the Enunciations, as we say Prophets, for the books of the Prophets, which idea is obscured by the common translation, “They that speak in proverbs,") "come unto Heshbon, let the city of Sihon be built and prepared: for there is a fire gone out of Heshbon, and a flame from the city of Sihon; it hath consumed Ar of Moab, and the lords of the high places of Arnon." (Numbers xxi. 14, 27.) These passages announce the existence of two

* See Vater's Fragment Hypothesis: Eichhorn's Document Hypothesis, and Dr. P. Smith's Geology and Scripture, Note, p. 202.

+ Numbers xxi. 13. As a fact, bearing upon the great antiquity of the Book here cited from, Dr. Lamb, Master of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, has remarked "that in this short passage, we find a verb (vahab) which occurs no where else in the Bible."-Hebrew Hieroglyphics, p. 9. It is considered to have been a word obsolete in the time of Moses, and thus that the book in which it occurs, must have been a production long anterior to his time.

books, and that one of them was distinguished by a historical, and the other by a prophetical character. In other portions of the Word, we find citations from another work, called the "Book of Jasher," and the writers apply what they have quoted from it, to events which were then in the course of being accomplished. (Joshua x. 12, 13; 2 Sam. i. 17, 18.)

That those ancient books were produced under divine superintendence, and designed for the spiritual guidance of the people to whom they were originally vouchsafed, seems evident, from the formal manner in which they are referred to, and the authority conceded to them. That one of them was constructed on the principle of expressing mental things in a historical manner, plainly appears from the passage that is quoted from it. As, then, it is certain, that the early portions of Genesis are distinguished by a peculiarity of composition, proving them to be documents of an entirely different character from those to which they are prefixed, there can be little doubt of their having originally formed a part of those more ancient divine records, the once-existence of which is certain from the fragments which remain.*

But this conclusion does not rest merely upon the probabilities of rational inference: there is some scriptural attestation of the fact. The fifth chapter of Genesis commences with the declaration, "This is the Book of the generations of Adam," and thereupon follows, in a style agreeable to those times, a record of all his descendants up to Noah and his sons. Doubtless this Book of Generations was a written document, containing the circumstances which the author of the Pentateuch has cited, and acknowledged in this instance, as we have seen he did in others.

As, then, there is testimony sufficient to show that the Antediluvian History in the Bible, was produced among a people whose genius led them to express their perceptions of interior and spiritual truth, by means of external and natural symbols, occasionally arranged in the form of historic narrative, we think we may most fairly and reasonably arrive at the general conclusion, that those documents were never intended to record the origin of mundane things, to express the phenomena of matter, or to deliver the social, civil or political history of the first men. Their true purpose is of

"We have no slight reasons for supposing that Moses compiled the chief parts of the Book of Genesis, by arranging and connecting ancient memoranda, under the divine direction." -Dr. Pye Smith. Scrip. and Geo. Second edition, p. 202.

ONLY THE COMMON VIEWS OBJECTED TO.

37

a much more sacred and religious character, which we shall endeavor to show. We shall, also, in addition to the general remarks which have now been made, venture to adduce, in their proper places, such other particular reasons for the conclusion arrived at, concerning the figurative structure of the Antediluvian History, as the specific points may seem to require. It is, however, always to be borne in mind, that those reasons are designed to weigh only against the vulgar apprehension of its literal sense; and also, that in no case, are they to be considered as questioning the divine origination of the documents, or suggesting doubts as to their spiritual value and purpose. We have deemed it requisite to make these statements, because there are some minds, who suppose that the rejection of a long standing interpretation, is the same thing as throwing discredit upon the documents. Against this we solemnly protest. We renounce nothing concerning those narratives, but that common opinion concerning them, which every sincere student has found it difficult to hold. We receive them as a genuine portion of the veritable Word of God, and therefore, we regard them as a Divine Revelation concerning celestial and spiritual things, and look upon every single expression they contain, to be significant of some interior affection and thought proper to man, in the process of his religious development, or attendant upon him during the calamity of his fall.

The style, in which these documents are composed, is the first of which we have any account, and perhaps it is the best adapted for the embodiment of divine communication; because it appears to have been a method of expression, which prevailed among an orderly and illuminated people, who enjoyed the advantages of interior perception, and displayed an activity of intellectual principle, very superior to any who have lived in subsequent ages. This was plainly referred to by Hannah, when she said, "Speak ye what is high, let what is ancient come forth from your mouth, for the Lord is a God of knowledge;" (1 Sam. ii. 3; Improved Translation:) and also, by the Psalmist, when he said, "Incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old; which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us." (Psalm lxxviii. 1, 2, 3.)

There are two modes of speaking of the Scriptures, frequently adopted, to which, in concluding these remarks, it will be useful to refer.

The first is, that the statements of the Scriptures must be im

plicitly and reverentially received, whether we understand them or not; and that it is mere presumption for man, with his carnal mind and puny intellect, to attempt to comprehend those wonderful things which it has pleased God to deliver, rather for his faith than his knowledge! This may be a pious submission to divine authority, taking its rise in religious feeling, but it is certainly mistaken in its application. We have no doubt that such obedíence is very becoming, provided it be accompanied with intelligence; but in the case before us, it wants the ingredient necessary to enlighten and give it value. Those who can satisfy themselves with such notions, are, therefore, beyond our reasonings. We can render them little service. They have faith for any thing — but that free and sensible inquiry into the legitimate meaning of Gods Word, which we regard to be the duty and prerogative of man.

The second mode, is that which asserts, that the Scriptures are "very simple in their structure;" and describes them as being for "simple minds," "plain readers,” “the common people,” “the unlearned," and so forth: thereby insinuating that those explanations are to be suspected which require labor, research, and intellectual culture for their discovery and comprehension. It is readily granted, that the Scriptures are so written, as to be serviceable even to the lowest states of human apprehension, but we do not believe that such a state apprehends the whole truth, contained in any one passage that may be presented to it.* There is just so much seen as the intellectual condition will admit of, and no more. The highest disclosures of divine wisdom, are not to be discerned by the lowest states of the human mind. The simple may receive the Word in simplicity, but the wise man understands it in wisdom, and the latter makes the nearest approaches to its true meaning. The apostle declared the rule when he said, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” (1 Cor. xiii. 11.) The word is rightly viewed when it is regarded, not only as capable of improving the heart, but also of enlightening the understanding: and therefore, its wisdom must be adapted to all the advancing conditions of the human mind. It is the wise and friendly character of revelation, not only to assist man in his intellectual elevation, but likewise to accompany him in his progress,

"Of those who actually read the Scriptures, multitudes are very imperfectly able to understand most of what they read."— Timothy Dwight, LL. D. Sermon 152.