Archaol. But fays the Theorist, the Sacred Writers do often speak in a Mystical, Allegorical, or Metaphorical ftile, and according to the capacity of the people, and why might not Mofes do the fame in delivering the History of the Creation. To answer this, let us confider in what cafes the Scriptures are to be taken, not in a literal but in an Allegorical and Metaphorical fenfe, and then compare each of them with the prefent cafe, to fee if there is any parity of reafon between them. First then, the Scriptures are to be underftood in an Allegorical fenfe, when their literal meaning would imply a contradiction, either to fome other place of the Sacred Writings, which is moft evidently to be underftood literally; or to the nature of the things fpoken of; thus when God Almighty is faid to have hands and feet, ears and eyes, to move and walk, and to have the affections and paffions belonging to Men, all or any of thefe fince they are a contradiction, to the Infinite perfections of the Deity, can never be understood in a literal meaning; tho' there fhould be still fome fort of analogy between them and the thing fignified. We are fure, that this confideration can have no place in the Mofaick Hiftory of the Creation, which moft certainly does neither contradict any other part of the Scriptures, nor is there any thing faid there but what is plainly poffible, and can be performed by the Power of God, who who if he had pleas'd, could have formed the World or any part of it (how great foever) in an inftant. In the next place, the Scriptures are not to be taken in a real and literal meaning, when they speak according to the fyftem of appearances, and the notions which we draw from our fenfes; Thus, when it reprefents the Earth plain, and as having four Corners, with the Heavens ftretched over it like a Curtain. In those indeed, and in many other fuch like places in Scripture, it is certain, that it was the defign of the Sacred Penmen, not to speak according to the reality and nature of the things themselves, but according to the notions and opinions which people received of them from their fenfes; or indeed when the Sun is faid to move every day from East to West, to Rife and Sett, to ftand ftill, there is no neceffity of imagining that all thofe things are really perform'd by the Sun; but there the holy Pen-men, as all other Writers which do not concern themselves with Astronomy, fpeak according to the fyftem of appearances, and as the Heavenly motions are reprefented to them by their fenfes, it being the common and receiv'd way of fpeaking from which we are not to recede, if we defign to be understood; and even all thofe Aftronomers who firmly believe the motion of the Earth, when it is not their business to explain the true fyftem of the Universe, Univerfe, are forced to fpeak in the fame Dialect and I believe we should scarce think a Man right in his wits, that in writing or fpeaking upon any common fubject, instead of faying that the Sun rofe and fet, or that it came to the East or went to the Weft of us, would fay, that our Horizon moved till it came above the Sun or went under it, or that our Horizon turned round till the Eaft or Weft points of it came to be exactly under the Sun. Now this can never be apply'd to the Mofaick Hiftory of the Creation, fince the method of the Formation of the World could never have appeared to our fenfes, and without a Divine Revelation, we fhould have been ignorant of it to this day, and had never difcover'd the order and method by which all things were form'd. Mofes certainly wrote that difcourfe on purpose to give us a true notion of the Creation, and therefore was to fpeak of things as they were really formed, without any refpect had to appearances as they would be reprefented to humane fenfes ; fince there was no Man then in being to whom they could have appeared, and I am of the opinion, that if he had purposely and directly wrote as much, upon the Syftem of the World and the motions of the Heavens, as he has done upon the fubject of the Creation, all those who acknowledge the Divine Authority of his writings, would have been oblig'd to believe it. The The next cafe, wherein we are to recede from the literal fenfe in the interpretation of Scripture is, when they deliver parables; thofe being only contriv'd by their Writers to illuftrate fomething wherein they would inftruct the people, can never be fuppos'd to be understood in a literal meaning. This way of writing is indeed very ancient, and is of great ufe for informing Mankind in the precepts of Prudence and Morality, which are never fo eafily retain'd, or fo ftrongly imprinted on our imagination, as when they are couched under fome Fable, whofe Moral is easily apprehended. But then from the nature of those Parables, and the manner of their delivery, it is easy to perceive, that their Authors never defign'd they should be received as true Hiftory; all their aim was, that we fhould attend to the Moral, for the fake of which the Parable was contriv'd; this is plain from the Parable of Jotham of the Trees choofing themselves a King, and from all the Parables of our Saviour. But the Hiftory of the Creation is a very different cafe from any of them; Mofes does not give it us as a Fable, only contriv'd for the fake of fome Moral meaning which he would have thereby understood, but delivers it feriously as matter of fact, which he would have us believe as firmly and truly as any other part of his Hiftory; and this a Man of integrity could never have given himfelf leave to do, had he not been fatisfied that the History was exactly true. But 321. But if the Theorists Hypothefis about the Mofaical Hiftory of the Creation were true; it feems that Mofes must have been guilty of imposture in a very high degree, for he fuppofes that Hiftory to have been abfolutely falfe, and without any foundation in the reality of things, and at the fame time freely owns, that Mofes wrote it with a design that it fhould be received as true, not by one Man only, but by a great and populous Nation, and that not for one Generation, but through all fucceeding Ages; this I take to be ftrange doctrine, and no ways agreeable to the high esteem we owe either to that great Prophet, or to the Veracity of that unerring Spirit that affifted him in writing. But it is the Theorifts opinion, that Mofes Pag. 320. thought it neceffary to give the Jews a Cofmogonia, a Theory of the Earth, each of their neighbouring Nations (as he gueffes) had one of their own, which were generally erroneous and inconfiftent with the true Religion; and if fo, fome of them might have had his Theory for ought we know; now he thinks, that without doubt the Jews had taken one from them, or had made one for themselves, unless they had been otherwise provided by Mofes; * he illuftrates this with a very decent fimilitude, if you do not get a Husband for your Daughter, fhe will find * Si nuptam non dederis filiam, ipfa fibi maritum quæret è famulis forfan aut bumili plebe. one |