writers of eminence ", and, whatever degree of verisimilitude it may possess, must be allowed to be possible, and perhaps as probable as the other. If, then, the existence of inert matter for a long, but indefinite period prior to the arrangement and organization described by Moses be possible, time will be allowed for the completion of those processes which geological appearances may seem to require; and this evinces beyond a doubt that an extension of time in the work of creation, beyond six natural days, is not necessarily required by any existing phenomena.

The hypothesis in question, then, is supported by a fallacious mode of reasoning, and is moreover open to several objections. There is no intimation in other parts of the sacred Volume, that the six days of creation were six periods of indefinite duration, which would be truly astonishing had they been really so, and not six natural days. The phraseology also of the inspired historian, "the evening and the morning were the first day," and " the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night," implies that each portion of the work was per

See Rosenmüller, Hist. Telluris Antiqua; Doederlein, Inst. Theol. Christ. §. 127.; Bp. Gleig, Note to Stackhouse's History of the Bible, lib. i. cap. i.; Dr. Chalmers, Evidences of the Christian Revelation.

G

formed in the course of one entire day, or within the period of one revolution of our planet round its axis. The word "day" generally denotes such a period, perhaps always, except in prophecy or poetical composition, and it would be most unaccountable if it were used in any other sense in so plain and simple a narrative as the beginning of Genesis. It has been said, indeed, that it does not bear the same meaning throughout the first chapter, because the first three days were passed before the creation of the sun is mentioned; and yet in these, no less than in the others, the portion of time is denoted by the words "evening and morning," which, according to their received import, necessarily suppose the existence of the sun. But the answer is easy. If the earth received its rotatory motion when it was first called into existence, as seems requisite to the order of the planetary system, one revolution upon its axis would, in point of time, constitute one day; and the inspired historian expresses this in the usual phraseology, though, strictly speaking, "the evening and the morning" suppose the existence of the sun. It is difficult to conceive in what other way he could so well express the time denoted by one revolution of the earth. It is also to be remembered that light was created before,

'Quarterly Review, Vol xxix. No. 57. p. 168.

so that the effect might be in some degree analogous to that which is now produced by the rising and setting of the sun.

That the seventh was a natural day is apparent from the very act of blessing and sanctification. The expressions "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it," denote, as the best commentators observe, that God ordered it to be set apart for the purpose of preserving the memory of the creation, and of offering prayer, praise, and adoration to the great Creator; a purpose which can alone be answered by hallowing every seventh day. It will not abate the force of this observation to assert, with the writer in the Quarterly already referred to, and others, that the obseryance of the sabbath was enjoined as commemorative of the close of the great work of creation, and that its solemn obligation is expressed by the parallel which it pleased God to draw between the progress of his own works, and the destined employment of that being whom he made in his own likeness. The period of one natural day alone can be commémorative of the close of the great work of creation, and, by consequence, the seventh day blessed and sanctified was a natural day, which, according to a remark previously made, infers that the whole of the six demiurgic days were six natural days.

Thus the hypothesis that the Pentateuchal

days of creation are vast periods of time is not only destitute of adequate support, but is opposed by some strong positive reasons. The argument, therefore, which is built upon it against the primitive institution of the sabbath must, of course, fall to the ground.

The principal objections against the universal observation of the sabbath, derived from the account of its institution in the second chapter of Genesis, have now been collected, and, it is hoped, refuted. Some others might have been noticed, but they do not appear of sufficient importance to require a distinct examination; for those which have been produced, and shewn to be unsubstantial, are the main support of the cause of the objectors. Now the overthrow of these is sufficient for the establishment of the opposite side of the question. The record is couched in general terms; and if the principal reasons for regarding it as an account, by way of anticipation, of a temporary ordinance of the Jews be invalid, it must necessarily be understood in a more enlarged sense, as the appointment of an institution designed for perpetuity. In order, however, to complete this part of the investigation, some direct arguments shall be subjoined, for believing that the command respecting the sabbath was given by the Almighty immediately after his demiurgic labours, and addressed to all

mankind, which infers its obligation upon all to whom the truths of Revelation are communicated.

In considering the passage of Genesis upon which the sole question depends, it must strike every attentive reader as declaring, in its plain and obvious sense, that the Deity at the close of the creation consecrated the seventh day in memory of that work, and set it apart for religious services. From the connection which it has with the preceding recital of the creation, it seems evident that Moses is speaking of one continuous transaction. The whole is a simple historical narrative in which, as clause follows clause in grammatical combination, it is fair to suppose that events are recorded in the order of succession. The blessing of the seventh day, then, immediately following the account of the six days' work, and being joined by the usual copulative, points it out as simultaneous with the completion of the divine cosmogony. There is no interval in the course of the history, no allusion to posterior transactions, no intimation in the slightest degree tending to refer the original of the sabbath to a subsequent period. Had it been merely mentioned proleptically, some qualifying adjunct would surely have disclosed to the reader that such was the case. But nothing of this kind is discoverable, while, on the contrary, the whole phraseology most obviously implies