of the word, it has been urged that, in the first clause of the verse, it must be taken literally. But this argument is not decisive; since, upon any interpretation, the meaning of in the two clauses is undeniably different. In the first, it excludes the evening; in the second, it includes it. In such a case, mere juxtaposition is of no account. The true difficulty is the emphatic ascription to each day of an evening and a morning. This, in our view, forbids us to understand these days immediately in the sense of indefinite periods of time. We cannot think that this difficulty is fully met by assigning to the words evening and morning a purely metaphorical sense, as is done by Prof. Lewis and others. That the difficulties in the way of compressing the whole work of creation into six literal days, of twenty-four hours each, are insuperable, we most firmly believe. We think, however, that the solution is to be found, not in forcing upon the word

the meaning of indefinite time, limited as it is by the ascription to it of an evening and a morning, but rather in the analogy of prophecy, which employs the common designations of time, such as day, week, month, to symbolize higher periods. This subject we reserve for fuller consideration in a subsequent Article.

Vs. 6-8. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters And let it divide between waters and waters. And God made the firmament, and divided between the waters which were below the firmament, and the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven: And there was evening, and there was morning, a second day.

The Heb. originally signified something beat out, as a metallic plate. Hence it came to be used for the blue expanse of heaven, which is spread out over our heads. What was the exact conception of the Hebrews respecting its nature, or whether they had any such conception, we cannot say. The words of Elihu to Job: "Canst thou, with him, spread out the skies strong, like a molten mirror?" 2 are not to be taken as a philosophical account of their substance. They

1 Compare Zech. 14: 6-8.

2 Job 37: 18.

simply convey the idea of their stability (compare the Greek OTEρéwμa, and the Latin firmamentum) and their splendor. In this azure vault God has placed the heavenly bodies, vs. 14, 17; the fowls fly above the earth, on its face; that is, along under it, as if skimming its surface, ver. 20; and it constitutes a permanent division between the waters above and below itself (Heb., and let it be dividing, where the participle denotes continued action). The waters under the firmament, are those on the earth's surface. The waters above the firmament are not, directly, the clouds; but rather that invisible storehouse of waters whence the clouds are, from age to age, supplied. The idea of water rising from the earth in the shape of mist,' and perhaps of clouds also, was familiar to the Hebrews; but this belonged to the waters under the firmament. Though we need not take the word windows, in the account of the deluge, in a literal sense, it is still certain that the forty days' rain is represented as coming from the waters above the firmament, described in the present passage. And it is in the same waters that God "layeth the beams of his chambers;" that is, his heavenly palace.*

Such seems to be the representation of the sacred writer. And now what is there in this at which modern science can justly take offence? Is it that he describes the firmament as an outspread vault, in which are placed the sun, moon, and stars? This is spoken according to appearance, just as we continue to speak of the sun as rising and setting, although we have learned that his motion exists only to our senses. Is it that he places an inexhaustible reservoir of water above our heads? That God has such a reservoir there, is certain; for he has been pouring down rain from it for six thousand years, and yet it is not spent. Whether all the waters of this reservoir were laid up at the beginning, or

1 Gen. 2: 6.

2 1 Kings 18: 44, where, however, the original words:

ascending from

the sea, do not necessarily mean anything more than coming up from the sea upon the land.

8 Gen. 7: 11. 8: 2.

4 Ps. 104: 3.

whether he is continually supplying them anew, and how this supply is effected these are questions for science, with which the inspired penman does not concern himself; nor is it necessary to suppose that he had any exact ideas on the subject. But why, it may be asked, did he not speak of this storehouse of waters as diffused through the firmament, instead of placing it above it? We answer: This would have been to convert the firmament of sense into the atmosphere of science, and phenomenon into natural philosophy; which, doubtless, God could have done, but did not see fit to do. The essential facts represented by placing these waters above the firmament, are that they are invisible to our senses; that the firmament sustains them in their place above the earth, so that they are kept separate from the waters on its surface; and that from them an inexhaustible supply of rain is furnished. These facts remain valid for all ages and for all stages of science. Science resolves the star-spangled vault of heaven into an atmosphere. Thus it ceases to be at any definite distance above the earth. It is no more forty miles above it, than it is forty rods. Hence, as Prof. Turner remarks, these waters may still be said, in popular language, "to be above the firmament, although at no very great elevation from the earth, because above that part of it in which birds usually fly." This is one of the many instances where science furnishes its own adjustment to unscientific phenomenal language.

1

Vs. 9, 10. And God said, Let the waters be gathered together from under the heavens unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas; and God saw that it was good.

);

From under the heavens (Heb. being spread abroad under the whole heavens.

that is, from There is no Unto

. מִתַּחַת 5 in the sense of מִתַּחַת necessity for taking

one place. The meaning is not that there shall be one sea, in opposition to many (for the gathering together of the wa

1 Turner on Genesis, Note (7), p. 133, where he answers Pfeiffer's objections to this view.

ters is called Seas); but that the sea shall occupy one place, and the dry land another; in other words, that each shall have its own separate place. This part of the narrative needs no further grammatical elucidation. It has a most important bearing on the question of the time occupied by these Mosaic days, which will be considered hereafter.

Vs. 11-13. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, whose seed is in itself, after its kind and God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning, a third day.

:

Here begins a new order of things, the product of God's creative power, in the highest sense of the words. Hitherto, all has been dead matter. Now, by the fiat of the Almighty, the earth, which has been separated from the waters, is clothed with vegetable life. The sacred writer divides the vegetable kingdom into three classes: 8, tender grass, for the use of cattle, where the seed does not come into account;1, herb yielding seed, such as the different grains and pulse, where the seed is the most important part; and, fruit-tree bearing fruit. The fruit he again distinguishes from the seeds of herbs by the addition, whose seed is in itself; for here it is neither the green herbage, nor the seed, but the fruit enveloping the seed, that comes into account. This is to be regarded as a popular division, in reference to the wants of men and animals, and not an exhaustive scientific division. The words

, upon the earth, refer to the fruit-tree, with its enumerated properties; and they indicate its permanency, as standing upon the earth from year to year.

The word, after its kind, is connected, in the 11th verse, with the fruit-tree alone; but, in the 12th verse, with the herb also; and is manifestly to be understood as indicating the universal law of the vegetable world, as it does af

Not in construction, Borúvηv xóprov, Sept.; that is, green herbage of plan's, contrary to the Masoretic accents. This impedes, instead of facilitating, the sense.

terwards that of the animal. The primitive Divine plan for all organic life, written as with a sun-beam upon the face of the Mosaic narrative, is that of species produced at their beginning by God's creative power, and each propagating itself after its kind. In this respect, the harmony between revelation and science is absolute. Every tree, every plant, every fern, every sea-weed; every beast, bird, fish, insect, is found to be after its kind. Many species are capable of variation, within certain limits; but no such thing exists in nature as the transmutation of one species into another, or the permanent confusion of species by hybrid mixtures.1

The theory of original panzoic germs, possessed of unlimited "elasticity and adaptability," and capable of taking upon themselves new forms and characters, according to the outward conditions to which they are subjected; so that from them have come, by an endless series of metamorphoses, all the protean forms of living things that now occupy the earth, or have occupied it in past ages, man himself included,this "development theory," we may safely turn over to the hands of such men as Hugh Miller and Charles Lyell, contenting ourselves with the unequivocal testimony of both Scripture and science, that sea-weeds were originally made sea-weeds, and trees, trees, after their kind.

There is another point, on which we wish to add a few words. When Moses represents the earth as bringing forth, at God's command, grass, herbs and trees after their kind, it is manifest that his design is not to describe the particular

1 For a good summary of the results of science on this point, we would refer the reader to the last edition of Lyell's Elements of Geology, Chapters XXXIII. to XXXVI. inclusive. The testimony of Lyell is the more valuable, because it is altogether independent of theological questions, and rests upon purely scientific grounds.

2 Prof Lewis rejects as atheism" a development theory which has no divine origination;” and adds that one “which acknowledges only one divine origina tion, and this from the logical necessity of getting a starting-point for physical speculation, is as near to atheism as it can be." But he thinks that "a develop ment theory in the sense of species from species, as well as individual from individual," by repeated "Divine interpositions," "may be as pious as any other." (Six Days of Creation. Chap, XVII p. 215) That it may be so per se we do not doubt. But it is a hypothesis which has neither Scripture nor science in its favor.