made to those luminaries and motions which determine for us all periods of duration. Nay, if, as some contend, the record is to be read literally and absolutely, not phenomenally and adaptively, it must be supposed declared that the sun, moon, and stars, had really no existence during the first three days. And then even if these periods were as imagined, just twentyfour hours long, they certainly could not have been natural days, they must have been ordered, not as now, but by some special, unexplained, exercise of Omnipotence. This, however, is a mere assumption, an arbitrary conclusion, sanctioned by not one iota of evidence in the record. Such understanding of the fourth day's work, we do not, it is true, regard as correct. The heavenly bodies were, at that time, we infer, made conspicuous, by some change in the earth's atmosphere. Their actual primary creation, we suppose indicated in the opening statement, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Their distinct appointment, though, as timemeasurers would be coeval with their manifestation in the sky, which we suppose meant to be described as occurring during the fourth stage, whether long or short. But however this may be, the account, in withholding all mention of the daydetermining orb, till the fourth period, seems in a very marked manner to intimate, that the previous terms, were not intended to be regarded as days, since, properly so called. But if natural days then began, the three first periods differed essentially from the three days that followed, and from all that have since dawned and departed. But there is not in the account a single particular from which any intimation can be gathered of such difference between the third day and the fourth. They are mentioned in precisely the same way, as if exactly of the same kind, and however marked off, distinguished in the same manner in both cases. So that if, as we have seen, the first were not natural days, neither, according to the record, were the last. And if not natural days, why should they be compressed into the exact and diminutive measure of twenty-four hours, in conflict with the grand and indefinite general spirit of the record? This remarkable eircumstance in the account, has of course always struck considerate readers. And the questionings to which it gives rise, concerning the character of the first crea tive days, are by no means modern. Mr. Lewis introduces interesting evidence of this, especially in certain extracts from St. Augustine. We need adduce only one quotation: "Quis ergo animo penetret quo modo illi dies transcerint, antequam inciperent tempora quæ quarto die dicuntur incipere?" * Intimately connected with the particular thus noticed, is another of kindred significancy, namely: The time-designations "evening," "morning," and " day," are not only terms of very general signification, according to their etymology, and the frequent use of Scripture, but they are in this account itself employed in a manner so remarkable, as almost inevitably to suggest, as soon as examined, the indefinite sense. "The words ' evening,' and 'morning,', ereb, and p, boker, denote, not duration of any extent, so much as the optical or physical appearances by which they are marked, or in which they commence and terminate. It is rational therefore to lay a stress on their phenomenal or etymological signification, which might not be justified in other cases, especially when we bear in mind that they are explanatory of the word 'day', yom... . The word y, ereb, which is undoubtedly the mother of the Greek Epɛẞoç, comes evidently from 7, to mingle, hence applied to the evening, the blending-time. Directly opposed to this phenomenally, is the word p, boker. The primary sense of the verb still existing in the Arabic, and clearly to be seen in its derivatives, is the same with that of the kindred word yp, namely, to cleave, to divide, to separate. . Hence the boker, is the distinguishing time."+ These terms, then, are like our English words Spring and Fall, not chronometrical, but phenomenal. They denote, not measured duration, but modes of being. And this general sense from their etymology, agrees well with a frequent use made of them in Scripture, as in common parlance. We speak of the morning of the year, the evening of life, the morning of the human race, etc. And in the Bible the same forms are employed. The words themselves, then, are indefinite. But their relations in the account seem still * De Gen. ad Lit. lib. II. ch. 14, referred to by Prof. Lewis, p. 174. פקד more so. In every instance the evening is placed first, and there is nothing whatever to indicate, at least in the earlier terms, its beginning or its end. Had morning first appeared, had creation and its record begun with the gleaming light, there had been presented to our view, an initial moment for the first day. But not so. It is evening first. And that unmarked in origin or extent. And when light appears, not only is the evening closed, but the day is ended. "The evening and the morning were the first day." And since all these "days" were alike, the indefinite character of the introductory "evening" and "morning," attaches to all and renders all indefinite. But this conclusion from the meaning and use of these two words, is much strengthened by similar considerations in connection with the word "day" or, yom. This is a general term, expressive of no particular period, and applied everywhere in the Bible in various indefinite senses. "In scriptural passages too numerous for citation, it is applied in an indefinite moral, political, or physical period, far exceeding the natural circuit of twenty-four hours. There is the day of the Lord, the day of justice or of mercy, the day of salvation, the day of Jerusalem," etc. And this very word is actually used in no less than four distinct senses, in the creative history itself. (1.) In verse 5, it is employed as a name for light-time, "And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night," just as we very often do. (2.) In verse 14, it is applied to those natural periods of twenty-four hours, which, in common with "seasons and years," the sun, moon, and stars, were as "signs" to mark off. "Let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Entire diurnal circuits, seem here certainly meant. (3.) In chapter 2, verse 4, already referred to, it is made to embrace the whole term of creation. "In the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." (4.) And finally, at the close of verses 5, 8, and 13, whatever may be said of 19, 23, and 31, and 2 of chapter 2, it is used to designate that period unmeasured by any celestial phenomena, *Mr. Lewis, p. 82. which comprehended the strange, undefined evening and morning. Certainly such remarkable plasticity in the word, according to the record itself, indicates that when, as in the fourth. of these forms, it is used without any determining condition, no restricted term is intended, but the sense is designed to be entirely indefinite. On these grounds, then, in addition to those already presented, we think the or, yom, as thus used means simply age, as it does Micah 4:6, and 5:9; Isaiah 12:1, etc. "In that day (age) saith the Lord, I will gather the outcasts, and the Lord himself shall reign over them in Mount Zion." "In that day (age) shall ye say, I will praise the Lord, for he is become my salvation." "In the latter days (ages) shall the mountain of the Lord's house be established in the top of the mountains, and all nations shall flow into it." And we think with Prof. Lewis, that, "the whole aspect of the record as it presents itself in the original, may have come up to the early Hebrew mind, just as it would do to us, had we been accustomed to the translation 'first age,' 'second age,' etc., instead of the one which, to our present associations, suggests the narrower sense." But there are two other particulars in the account we have to mention, still farther strengthening the conclusion. The style of expression, concerning the first day, and the omission of "evening" and "morning," on the seventh day. The latter circumstance strikes us as intimating that the circuit of that "day" was not completed, as the six had been, but that the divine Sabbath is yet in progress, and that its course will not be accomplished till the great revealing morning comes, in which all secret things shall be brought to light. But more of this at the last. In the style and order of expression referred to, there is a peculiarity apparently designed to fall in remarkably with the indefiniteness of the account in other respects. "There was an evening, and there was a morning, one day." "The expressions are very peculiar; in fact, sui generis. The morning and the evening of a common solar day would not have been thus set forth. It is never thus set forth in any other part of the Old Testament. The emphasis and the order of the language are unusual. The asserting substantive verbs are so for mally repeated, 'there was an evening, and there was a morning,' as if it were intended to make succession of events, not specified duration, the essential and prominent thought. There had been pictured the chaos; there is, then, presented the going forth of the brooding, vivifying spirit upon the dark waters of the abyss; this is followed by its first-born, the light; and then, as if to prevent all misconception, we have what follows, as though some silent inquiry was to be met, this was the evening, and this was the morning," 'thus there was an evening, and thus there was a morning,-one day.”"The expression, day one, is generally explained as equivalent to first day, on the ground of a Hebrew idiom, which sometimes employs the first cardinal number for an ordinal. And yet there would seem to be something peculiar about it, which such explanation does not meet. In the case of the other days, the common ordinals are employed; and corresponding to them, we should have had in this place, instead of w, had it not been intended to convey the idea of something anomalous in the first period, as an intimation, perhaps, that such character belonged to them all. In regard to this thought, there is a very suggestive passage. Zechariah 14: 6, 7: And it shall 14:6, come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear nor dark. And it shall be one day, which shall be known to the Lord, not day nor night, but it shall come to pass, that in the evening time there shall be light.' Various views have been taken of this strange language, not necessary to be here given. The main resemblance with our case in Genesis, is in the words , which are precisely the same, and in a similar connection in the two passages. In the Prophecy, a peculiar day is evidently denoted, a day differing much from common days, and why not the same in Genesis?- -Some of the Fathers were so struck by this language, as to be led to regard the first day as some how including all the rest. A fact indicating how anomalous they considered these creative days, and how little they felt bound by any narrow twenty-four-hour hypothesis. A remark of Josephus also, may be well recalled in this connection, (Antiq. Bk. 1, ch. 1): "And this was the first day; but Moses called it one day, the cause of which I am able to give |